The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 09/28/2010 Item #16I1611 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE September 28, 2010 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Districts: 1) South Florida Water Management District: Tentative Budget FY 2010 -2011. B. Minutes: 1) Airport Authority: Minutes of July 12, 2010; July 26, 2010 Fuel Pricing Committee. 2) Animal Services Advisory Board: Minutes of April 20, 2010. 3) Collier County Citizens Corps: Agenda of July 21, 2010. Minutes of July 21, 2010 — no quorum. 4) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee: Minutes of April 29, 2010; May 20, 2010 Clam Bay Subcommittee; June 10, 2010; June 17, 2010 Clam Bay Subcommittee. 5) Collier County Code Enforcement Board: Minutes of June 24, 2010; July 22, 2010. 6) Contractors Licensing Board: Minutes of June 16, 2010. 7) Development Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of June 2, 2010; July 21, 2010; August 4, 2010; August 13, 2010 Public Utilities/RPZ Subcommittee; August 19, 2010 Public Utilities/RPZ Subcommittee; August 27, 2010 Public Utilities/RPZ Subcommittee. 8) Environmental Advisory Council: Minutes of August 4, 2010. 1611 9) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee: Agenda of January 13, 2010; February 10, 2010; March 17, 2010; April 14, 2010; May 19, 2010; July 7, 2010. Minutes of November 18, 2009; January 13, 2010; February 10, 2010; March 17,2010; April 14,2010; May 19, 2010. 10) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of July 12, 2010; August 10, 2010. Minutes of May 11, 2010; July 12, 2010. 11) Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee: Agenda of March 23, 2009; May 20, 2009; July 27, 2009; September 28, 2009; December 7, 2009; January 25, 2010; March 22, 2010; May 24, 2010. Minutes of March 23, 2009; May 20, 2009; July 27, 2009; September 28, 2009; December 7, 2009; January 25, 2010; March 22, 2010; May 24, 2010. 12) Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Minutes of April 29, 2010. 13) Historical/Archaeolojaical Preservation Board: Minutes of April 15, 2009. 14) Immokalee Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of February 24, 2010; March 24, 2010; May 26, 2010; June 23, 2010. Minutes of January 27, 2010; February 24, 2010; April 28, 2010; May 26, 2010. 15) Immokalee EnteMrise Zone Development Agency: Agenda of July 21, 2010; August 18, 2010. Minutes of June 16, 2010; July 21, 2010. 16) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board: Agenda of July 21, 2010; August 18, 2010. Minutes of June 16, 2010; July 21, 2010. 1611 17) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Minutes of May 6, 2010. 18) Uly Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of July 15, 2010; August 19, 2010. Minutes of May 20, 2010; July 15, 2010. 19) Pelican Bay Services Division Board: Agenda of July 7, 2010; July 9, 2010 budget subcommittee; August 4, 2010; August 5, 2010 budget subcommittee; September 1, 2010; September 2, 2010 special session. Minutes of May 26, 2010 community improvement workshop; June 2, 2010; July 7, 2010; July 8, 2010 budget subcommittee; August 4, 2010; August 5, 2010 budget subcommittee. 20) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of May 18, 2010; August 17, 2010. Minutes of April 20, 2010; May 18, 2010. 21) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of March 4, 2010; April 1, 2010; May 6, 2010. Minutes of February 4, 2010; March 4, 2010; April 1, 2010. 22) Water and Wastewater Authority: Minutes of May 10, 2010. C. Other: 1) Code Enforcement Special Magistrate: Minutes of July 16, 2010. 2) Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Intersection Safety Program: Minutes of July 21, 2010; August 2, 2010. �. �� ... ,,a � 6'fr r `iii^ �1 ... .� _J ..... f 'd+'� S ) { -�-- : -ors.. �._ ..,... _ z.� r .r�, South Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416 -4680 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, FL 33406 561- 686 -8800 / FL WATS 1- 800 -432 -2045 Carol Ann Wehle, Executive Director Thomas 011iff, Assistant Executive Director Paul Dumars, Chief Financial Officer 1611 Air r r i 'L r 'L , N r r��1 161I1 A 1 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 • (561) 686 -8800 • FL WATS 1- 800 - 432 -2045 • TDD (561) 697 -2574 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 33416 -4680 • www.sfwmd.gov Ig W LZ AUG 0 3 2010 July 30, 2010 '9y, Recipients of the enclosed CD Subject: South Florida Water Management District Tentative Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2011 To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to Chapter 373.536, F.S., enclosed is a CD containing the South Florida Water Management District's Standard Format Tentative Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2011. The CD contains a PDF file that can be viewed using a personal computer. Feel free to print the budget submission in whole or in part as you deem appropriate. Should you require a hard copy of the document, please contact Kimberly Bates at 561- 682 -2095 or via email at kbates _sfwmd.gov. If you have any questions regarding the attached, you may contact me at 561- 682 -6295 or via email at msm kows wmd. ov. Sincerely, JL Michael Smykowski Director, Budget Office MS /kdb Enclosure t 16 A1 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT July 30, 2010 The Honorable Charlie Crist Governor of the State of Florida Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -0001 Dear Governor Crist: RECEIVED SEP 0 7 2010 Board of County Commissioners Subject: South Florida Water Management District Tentative Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 The South Florida Water Management District (District) respectfully submits the Standard Format Tentative Budget Submission for the Fiscal Year 2010 -2011. Faced with further declining revenues, the Governing Board and Qff thoroughly examined both existing commitments and emerging issues to ensure th _ his proposed FY2010 -2011 budget allows the agency to effectively carry out its tutory water management responsibilities. In compliance with the Board's direction to maintain a continuation millage rate, the District's ad valorem component of the proposed budget reflects a 13.2 percent, or $60.9 million, decrease compared to the current year. In response, the District identified and implemented a number of additional cost - cutting measures and applied strict criteria to the evaluation of project funding requests. As a result of those actions, mission - critical responsibilities — especially maintaining South Florida's flood control infrastructure that protects 7.5 million residents — remain intact without any increase in tax rates. The District has significantly reduced costs for fleet management, training, travel, energy use and other operational and administrative functions. Constantly reassessing operating costs and proposed projects ensure that every taxpayer dollar goes directly to support the agency's mission of balancing and improving flood control, water supply, water quality and natural systems. The tentative budget of $1.07 billion reflects ad valorem revenues based on continuation millage rates, prior year Certificate of Participation proceeds, state and federal appropriations, balances, fees, agricultural privilege taxes and other sources. The Governing Board will solicit input on the proposed budget at a public hearing on September 8 at 5:15 p.m. and at its final public hearing on September 21 at 5:15 p.m. The citizens of South Florida are invited and encouraged to attend these pui�s. 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 • (561) 686 -8800 • FL WATS 1 -800- 432 -24*N Mailing Address: P.O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 33416 -4680 • www.sfwmd.gov Copies t0: •21UN a The Honorable Charlie Crist July 30, 2010 Page 2 16 1 rl' i A I Recognizing that these continue to be challenging economic times, the South Florida Water Management District remains committed to taking every action to increase fiscal efficiency, reduce spending and operate as prudently as possible. Working in concert with the Governor's Office and the Florida Legislature, the District's overarching goal is to provide an excellent return on taxpayer dollars to protect the region's water resources and meet the needs of the citizens we serve. Sincerely, Carol Ann Wehle Executive Director South Florida Water Management District CAW /kdb Enclosure 9160 'R 111611 ► L 16I9 A 1 Pursuant to Section 373.536(6)(a) F.S., the SFWMD's Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 proposed budget has been mailed to the following individuals: THE FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES • Larry Cretul, Speaker of the House • David Rivera Full Appropriations Council on General Government & Health Care • Alan Hays, Government Operations Appropriations Committee • Baxter Troutman, General Government Policy Council • Denise Grimsley, Government Accountability Act Council • Trudi Williams, Agriculture & Natural Resources Policy Committee • Ralph Poppell, Natural Resources Appropriations Committee THE FLORIDA SENATE • Jeff Atwater, President of the 4nate • Mike Haridopolis, Policy and Steering Committee on Energy, Environment and Land Use • Lee Constantine, Environmenta} Preservation and Conservation Committee • Dennis Jones, Policy and Steering Committee on Governmental Operations • J.D. Alexander, Policy and Steering Committee on Ways and Means • Carey Baker, General Government Appropriations Committee JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES • Senator Gary Siplin, Joint Legislative Committee on Everglades Oversight • Representative Julio Robaina, Joint Legislative Committee on Everglades Oversight SENATE COMMITTEES - STAFF DIRECTORS • Craig Varn, Policy and Steering Committee on Energy, Environment and Land Use • Wayne Kiger, , Environmental Preservation and Conservation Committee • Paul Whitfield, Policy and Steering Committee on Governmental Operations — • Ray Wilson, Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee • Skip Martin and David Coburn, Policy and Steering Committee on Ways and Means • Jamie DeLoach, General Government Appropriations Committee HOUSE COMMITTEES - STAFF DIRECTORS • JoAnne Leznoff, Full Appropriations Council on General Government & Health Care • Tom Hamby, General Government Policy Council • Rick Mahler, Government Accountability Act Council • Susan Reese, Agriculture & Natural Resources Policy Committee • Lynn Dixon, Natural Resources Appropriations Committee JOINT COMMITTEES - STAFF DIRECTORS • Mike Bascom and Michael Kliner, Joint Legislative Committee on Everglades Oversight DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION • Michael W. Sole, Secretary, Department of Environmental Protection • Jennifer Fitzwater, Deputy Secretary, Department of Environmental Protection • Greg Knecht, Department of Environmental Protection, Director, Ecosystem Projects • Janet Llewellyn, Department of Environmental Protection, Director, Division of Water Resource Management 16 r-1 COUNTY COMMISSION • Broward County Commission — Mayor Ken Keehl • Charlotte County Commission — Chairman Bob Starr • Collier County Commission — Chairman Fred Coyle • Glades County Commission — Chairman Russell Echols Hendry County Commission — Chairwoman Janet B. Taylor • Highlands County Commission — Chairman Don Bates • Lee County Commissioner — Chairwoman Tammy Hall • Martin County Commission — Chairman Doug Smith • Miami -Dade Commission — Chairman Dennis Moss • Monroe County Commission — Mayor Sylvia Murphy • Okeechobee County Commission — Chairman Clif Betts, Jr. • Orange County Commission - Mayor Richard T. Crotty • Osceola County Commission — Chairman J Fred Hawkins, Jr. • Palm Beach County Commission - Chairman Burt Aaronson • Polk County Commission — Chairman Bob English • St. Lucie County Commission — Chairman Charles Grande STATE OF FLORIDA • Charlie Crist, Governor • Shane Strum, Executive Office of the Governor, Chief of Staff • Andrew Grayson, Executive Office of the Governor • Ken Kuhl, Executive Office of the Governor • John Mitchell, Executive Office of the Governor WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS • Larry Wright, Northwest Florida Water Management District • Daryl Pokrana, Southwest Florida Water Management District • Vern Roberts, Suwannee River Water Management District • Vicky Kroger, St. John's Water Management District Table of Contents 1601 A 1 I. Foreword ............................................................ ..............................1 11. Introduction to the District .............................. ...........................2 -14 A. History of Water Management Districts in Florida B. Overview of the District C. Vision, Mission and Values of the District D. Related Reports E. Development of the District Budget F. Budget Guideline G. Budget Development Calendar and Milestones 111. Budget Highlights ........................................... ..........................15 -42 A. Current Year Accomplishments B. Major Budget Objectives / Priorities C. Adequacy of Fiscal Resources D. Budget Summary 1. Overview 2. Three -year Revenue Comparison 3. Major Revenue Budget Variances 4. Revenue by Funding Source and EOG Program 5. Proposed Millage Rates 6. Three -Year Expenditure Summary by EOG Program 7. Major Expenditure Budget Variances IV. Program and Activity Allocations ............ .............................43 -102 A. Program and Activity Definitions, Descriptions, and Budget B. Program and Activity Allocations by Area of Responsibility V. Sources and Use of State and Federal Funds ...................103 -106 VI. Summary of Staffing Levels ........................... ............................107 VII. Performance Measures . ............................... ........................108 -132 A. Budgetary Performance Measures by EOG Program VIII. Basin Budget .................. ............................... ........................133 -137 Appendices.............................. ............................... ........................138 -162 A. Other Fund Balances B. Water Protection & Sustainability Program C. Terms D. Acronyms 1611 I. FOREWORD Al To ensure the fiscal accountability of the water management districts, the 1996 Legislature enacted section 373.536(5)(a), Florida Statutes, which authorizes the Executive Office of the Governor (EOG) to approve or disapprove water management district (WMD) budgets, in whole or in part. Section 373.536 also directs the water management districts to submit a tentative budget by August 1 in a standard format prescribed by the Executive Office of the Governor. This report has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of section 373.536, Florida Statutes, using the standard format agreed upon by the Executive Office of the Governor, the Department of Environmental Protection and the five water management districts. The 2001 Legislature passed a bill that reorganized section 373.536, F.S., and re- ordered the budget review provisions currently contained in that section to contain all or part of three other sections within the statutes that dealt with water management district fiscal matters. The legislation eliminated the requirement that the water management districts submit a five -year capital improvement plan (CIP) and the districts' five -year Water Resource Development Work Plans. HB727, passed in the 2005 legislative session, changed the timing of these and other WMD reports. The Florida Legislature in 2005 -36 Laws of Florida requires this information be provided in the consolidated South Florida Environmental Report due annually on March 1. In compliance with statutory requirements, the district submitted, by July 15, a tentative budget for governing board consideration. The South Florida Water Management District (the District) now submits this August 1 tentative budget for review by the Governor, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the chairs of all legislative committees and subcommittees with substantive or fiscal jurisdiction over water management districts, the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection, and the governing body of each county in which the district has jurisdiction or derives any funds for the operations of the district. The fiscal year 2010 -2011 tentative budget is scheduled for two public hearings as part of its adoption. The first hearing will take place on September 8, 2010 and the final budget adoption hearing will take place on September 21, 2010. Because this August 1 submission is a tentative budget, readers are advised to obtain a final copy of the District's budget when it becomes available in September. The District encourages readers to visit its internet site at www.sfwmd.gov for complete and updated financial information. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 1 1611 A� II. INTRODUCTION TO THE DISTRICT A. History of Water Management Districts Due to extreme drought and shifting public focus on resource protection and conservation, legislators passed four major laws in 1972; the Environmental Land and Water Management Act, the Comprehensive Planning Act, the Land Conservation Act, and the Water Resources Act. Collectively, these policy initiatives reflect the philosophy that land use, growth management, and water management should be joined. Florida's institutional arrangement for water management is unique in the United States and beyond. The 1972 Water Resources Act (WRA) granted Florida's five water management districts broad authority and responsibility. Two of the five districts existed prior to the passage of the WRA (South Florida and Southwest Florida) primarily as flood control agencies. However, today the responsibilities of all five districts encompass four broad categories: water supply (including water allocation and conservation), water quality, flood protection and natural systems management. Regional water management districts, established by the Legislature and recognized in the State Constitution, are set up largely on hydrologic boundaries. Water management districts are funded by ad valorem taxes normally reserved for local governments using taxing authority which emanates from a constitutional amendment passed by Floridians in 1976. The water management districts are governed regionally by boards appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. There is also general oversight at the state level by the Department of Environmental Protection. Florida water law embodied largely in Chapter 373 of the Florida Statutes, combines aspects of Western (prior appropriation) and Eastern (riparian) water laws. In Florida, water is a resource of the state, owned by no one individual, with the use of water overseen by water management districts acting in the public interest. The original law recognized the importance of balancing human needs for water with those of Florida's natural systems. This took the form of requiring the establishment of minimum flows and levels for lakes, streams, aquifers, and other water bodies; and restrictions on long - distance water transfers. Each of Florida's water management districts has a history that cannot be completely detailed here. Together, these unique organizations work with state and local government to assure the availability of water supplies for all reasonable and beneficial uses; protect natural systems in Florida through land acquisition, management, and ecosystem restoration; promote flood protection; and address water quality issues. The reader should review the Web sites and contact officials at each district for further details. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 2 B. Overview of the District 161 History South Florida's subtropical extremes of hurricane, flood, and drought, combined with efforts to populate this "new frontier," led the U.S. Congress to adopt legislation creating the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project (C &SF) in 1948, the largest civil works project in the country at the time. Construction began the next year in 1949 and continued for over twenty (20) years. The project's primary goal was to serve the needs of the region's growing agricultural and urban populations and to protect and manage water resources. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) would, over the following decades, design and build a vast network of levees, canals and other improved waterways, and water control structures designed to help manage the often unpredictable weather extremes of the region. In 1949, the Florida Legislature created the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District (FCD) to act as the local sponsor for this federal project by operating and maintaining the water control network system. Throughout its history, this agency evolved and grew primarily in response to the impact of population growth and development on the region's water resources. As mentioned previously, the Florida Water Resources Act of 1972 greatly expanded the responsibilities of the existing FCD. This included a greater emphasis on water quality and environmental protection initiatives. The FCD was renamed the South Florida Water Management District (District) in 1976, and new boundaries were drawn to encompass the region's primary watersheds. In 1976, voters approved a constitutional amendment giving the water management districts the authority to levy property taxes. Since 1949, the District has grown into a multi- faceted agency responsible for most water resource related issues: from providing flood protection and water supply to restoring and managing natural ecosystems. Boundaries Water Management District boundaries are based on natural, hydrogeologic basins rather than political /county limits to allow for effective and efficient planning and management. The boundaries of the District encompass all or part* of 16 counties, covering a total area of 17,930 square miles, spanning from Orlando to Key West. Approximately seven million people live within the District's boundaries. Broward Charlotte* Collier Glades Hendry Highlands* Lee Martin Miami -Dade Monroe Orange* Osceola* Okeechobee* Palm Beach Polk* St. Lucie There are two primary basins contained within the District's boundaries, the Okeechobee Basin and the Big Cypress Basin. The Okeechobee Basin is based on SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 3 1611 A1 � the sprawling Kissimmee - Okeechobee - Everglades (KOE) ecosystem, which stretches from Central Florida's Chain of Lakes to Lake Okeechobee and south to the Florida Keys. It includes the 700,000 acres within the Everglades Agricultural Area, the heavily developed southeast coast, and the Everglades National Park. The Big Cypress Basin includes all of Collier and part of Monroe counties, the Big Cypress National Preserve and the 10,000 Islands. The Big Cypress Basin primarily provides flood control and stormwater management to the citizens of Collier County and works in cooperation with Collier County and other local governments on water resource, water resource development and alternative water supply issues. General Responsibilities The District is a multi- faceted agency tasked with providing flood control at the core of its mission; however, its responsibilities have increased greatly since being created by the state legislature in 1949. The District operates and maintains the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project, develops and implpents water supply plans, provides ecosystem research and monitoring, regulates water use, purchases land for preservation, and implements ecosystem restoration plans. In addition, staff conducts environmental monitoring and assessments, produces public outreach materials, and oversees financial, legal, and contractual services. In recent years, the District has become responsible for integrating, managing, and implementing the Everglades Construction Project and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. To meet these responsibilities, the District's proposed FY2011 staffing level totals 1,842 regular full -time positions. These positions are located at facilities across the District's 16- county jurisdiction to offer the public more direct and responsive access to permitting and other agency functions. These facilities include eight field stations located in Kissimmee, Okeechobee, Clewiston, West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Homestead, and Naples and service centers located in Fort Lauderdale, the Florida Keys, Fort Myers, Stuart, Miami -Dade, Okeechobee, Orlando, and Naples. The District's central headquarters are located in West Palm Beach. The following is a discussion of SFWMDs major responsibilities: Operations & Maintenance Program The Districts Operations and Maintenance Program consist of activities to effectively and efficiently manage the primary canals and associated structures in South Florida. Operations and Maintenance Program activities include the C &SF Project, as well as the Big Cypress Basin, as authorized by Ch. 373 F.S. and the USACE. Activities include the operation and maintenance of 501 water control structures, 50 pump stations to send water south and through waterways eastward and westward to both coasts, and managing 1,969 miles of canals and levees — 1,800 miles in the C &SF Project, and 169 miles in the Big Cypress Basin. Smaller water control structures are in place system -wide to control inflows from secondary sources (local, municipal, or county drainage and /or water control districts) into the District's primary system. In total, the District's structures and pumping stations SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 4 t Rs 1611 can move hundreds of millions of gallons of water in and out of storage areas, providing for both water supply and flood protection. Regulatory Responsibilities The District has a number of regulatory programs designed to protect the region's water resources. Under the state's 1993 environmental streamlining legislation, land alteration activities or works affecting water resources are regulated under one type of permit — the Environmental Resource Permit. Pursuant to statutory direction, the water management districts and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) have developed uniform wetland delineation, mitigation banking, and environmental resource permitting criteria. The District is also responsible for regulating consumptive uses of water. Types of activities regulated by the District include: • Projects with impacts on wetlands or other surface waters (dredge and fill); • Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) "Works of the District ", • Use of District lands, canals or levee rights -of -way; • Taking water from lakes, canals, streams or aquifers; • Drainage system construction or operation; and ✓ Well construction. Water Resource System Programs The Upper Chain of Lakes and the Kissimmee River are the northernmost components of the greater Everglades system. The 56 -mile channelized (C -38) Kissimmee River connects Lake Kissimmee and Lake Okeechobee. Lake Okeechobee spans 730 square miles and is the second largest freshwater lake located wholly within the United States. The Caloosahatchee River stretches 67 miles, from Lake Okeechobee west to the Gulf of Mexico at Fort Myers. The St. Lucie Canal is Lake Okeechobee's eastern outlet, extending 25.5 miles from Port Mayaca to the south fork of the St. Lucie River. Three Water Conservation Areas (WCA) and the Everglades National Park preserve about 50 percent of the original Everglades. These WCAs are located in the western portions of Palm Beach, Broward and Miami -Dade Counties and encompass 1,337 square miles. Florida Bay and the Florida Keys are the southern most components of the Greater Everglades system. While currently experiencing rapid growth along the Southwest Florida coast, much of the interior land in the Big Cypress Basin is still undeveloped. Included in this natural land area are the Corkscrew Swamp and Sanctuary, the Big Cypress National Preserve, the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, the Fakahatchee Strand, the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) and the 10,000 Islands. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 5 Comprehe nsive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Program 161�1 A The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) provides a framework and guide to restore, protect, and preserve the South Florida Ecosystem while providing for other water - related needs of the region, including water supply and flood protection. It covers 16 counties over an 18,000- square mile area and centers on an update of the C &SF Project. For 50 years, the C &SF Project has performed its designed functions well. However, improvements to the system are required and will be implemented as part of the CERP program. The C &SF Project was not designed to support existing levels of development, and the project has had unintended adverse effects on the unique and diverse environment that constitutes the south Florida ecosystem, including the Everglades and Florida Bay. The Water Resources Development Acts in 1992 and 1996 provided the USACE with the authority to re- evaluate the performance and impacts of the C &SF Project and to recommend improvements and /or modifications to the project in order to restore the south Florida ecosystem and to provide for other water resource needs. The resulting plan was designed to capture, store and redistribute fresh water previously lost to tide and to regulate the quality, quantity, timing and distribution of water flows. The CERP, which was authorized under Title VI, Section 601 of the 2000 Water Resources Development Act, will vastly increase storage and water supply for the natural system, as well as for urban and agricultural needs, while maintaining current C &SF Project flood control efforts. During the 1999 session, the Florida Legislature created Section 373.1501 and amended Section 373.026 of the Florida Statutes. Section 373.1501 provides a legislative finding that the CERP is important for restoring the Everglades ecosystem and for sustaining the environment, economy and social well being of south Florida. This legislation facilitates and supports the CERP through an approval process concurrent with Federal government review and Congressional authorization. Further, this section ensures that all project components are implemented through appropriate processes and are consistent with the balanced policies and purposes of Chapter 373, F.S., and specifically Section 373.026, F.S. In Section 373.026 (8) (b), F.S. the Florida Department of Environmental Protection is directed to collaborate with the District and to approve each project component with or without amendments within a specified time frame. During the 2000 session, the Florida Legislature passed into law Section 373.470, F.S., the "Everglades Restoration Investment Act," which authorized funding for the implementation of the CERP in the amount of $100 million per year for the first ten years of the program, and created an equal funding partnership with the District. The Act also established a "full and equal partnership" between the state and the federal government. During the 2007 session, the Florida Legislature authorized the continuation of funding for the Save Our Everglades Trust Fund for the CERP through the year 2020, providing an additional $1 billion of funding for the program. CERP includes 68 components (features) which will be implemented through the execution of multiple projects. It will take more than 30 years to construct and will be SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 6 1611 Al bst shared`dqually among the federal government and local sponsors, of which the District is the major local sponsor. CERP also includes Restoration Coordination and Verification (RECOVER), which is intended to ensure that high quality science is continuously available during implementation of the Plan. RECOVER encourages the participation of diverse agencies and stakeholders in adaptive management and ongoing refinement of the Plan. Northern Everglades Initiative New legislation in 2007, codified in Senate Bill 392, amends s. 373.4595, the Lake Okeechobee Protection Act. The bill renames the Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan to the "Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program ". The Phase II plan for Lake Okeechobee Watershed Protection is modified to reflect new measures, provide additional detail on project schedules and identify additional types of projects to be considered. The bill also creates new water protection programs for the Caloosahatchee River and the St. Lucie River watersheds. Each of these programs contains sub - component programs, specifically: watershed protection plan, watershed construction project, watershed pollutant control program and watershed research and water quality monitoring program. Program requirements, goals and objectives are also created. Finally, the bill modifies provisions related to the Save Our Everglades Trust Fund. The District is required to match equally funds appropriated by the state for the Save Our Everglades Trust Fund and distributed to the District through FY2020. District Everglades Program The Everglades Construction Project is the first major step in Everglades Restoration and part of the Everglades Forever Act (EFA), passed by the Florida Legislature in 1994. The ECP is one of the largest public works projects in the nation for environmental restoration, originally estimated to cost approximately $845.2 million over 20 years. The total cost associated with implementing the 1994 ECP is shared among the District, state and federal governments. The major funding sources identified in the EFA were ad valorem property taxes (up to 1/10 mill), agricultural privilege taxes, state land funds, federal funds, Alligator Alley toll revenues, and other environmental mitigation funds. The EFA directed the District to acquire land, design, permit, and construct a series of Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) to reduce phosphorus levels from stormwater runoff and other sources before it enters the Everglades Protection Area (EPA). The STAs, which originally consisted of six large constructed wetlands totaling over 40,000 acres, are the cornerstone of the ECP. In FY2007, the ECP STAs were expanded by approximately 5,000 acres. Recently, the District initiated construction to expand the STAs to a total of approximately 58,500 acres as part of the Everglades Expedited Projects. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 7 1AJ ri. Y 2 Other District Programs The District's responsibilities extend far beyond regulatory programs, Everglades restoration, water supply plan implementation, and flood control operations. The District acquires, manages, and restores lands through Florida's Save our Everglades land acquisition programs. Florida's Forever Clean -Up efforts continue for Lake Okeechobee, Biscayne Bay, and the Indian River Lagoon through the Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan and coastal Stormwater retrofits. Restoration of the Kissimmee River, the headwaters of the Everglades, is another major District initiative. Partnership and coordination with other levels of government and other agencies help support water resource development projects, development of alternative water supplies, water conservation, reuse, and stormwater management goals. Research, data collection and analysis help ensure District projects and programs are effective and efficient. Emergency operations and management is a cornerstone of District operations, especially during the hurricane season or in times of drought. The District is also a leader in melaleuca, aquatic weed, and other exotic pest plant control. Governing Board il The 1972 legislature creating water management districts also established two basin boards within the boundaries of the South Florida Water Management District. The Big Cypress Basin Board which oversees water resource issues within Collier County and a small portion of Monroe County; and the Okeechobee Basin Board which oversees water resource issues within the remaining counties. The District's Governing Board sets policy and direction for the entire agency. The Governing Board (Board) is composed of nine members appointed from specific geographic areas within the district. The members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Florida Senate. Appointments are made on a staggered basis as vacancies occur. Board members serve without salary for a term of four years. The Board elects its own officers, including a chairman and vice - chairman. The Big Cypress Basin Board is comprised of a chairman ex- officio from the District's Governing Board and five Basin residents appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Florida Senate. Big Cypress Basin Board members serve terms of three years, and receive no compensation. Executive Office The Governing Board appoints the agency's Executive Director and the Inspector General. The Florida Senate confirms the Executive Director, like Governing Board Members. The Executive Director serves as the Secretary to the Governing Board and is responsible for administering the directives of the Board and managing day -to -day District activities. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 8 'Guiding Principles 1611 Al I Accomplishing the District's mission and implementing the programs and projects identified in the District's budget requires a unified effort by the Governing Board, District staff, other agencies, various stakeholders, and the general public. Such unity can be achieved only when each group understands the guiding principles, or underlying tenets that reflect the culture of the agency. The following principles reflect these core beliefs and how the District does business. ✓ The District will balance the needs of natural resource systems, flood protection, water quality and water supply, all within the context of a regional ecosystem. ✓ The District will maintain accountability and the prudent use of financial resources. The District has adopted 16 principles of financial management which govern such practices as: the method by which the district purchases goods and services; the preparation of financial reports, the management of cash, debt, and reserve funds; the preparation of its operating and capital budgets; and the maintenance of sound internal controls and audit functions. ✓ The District recognizes the value of cooperative relationships with the public and private sectors and other members of the community, and the need to communicate strategic decisions to these audiences. ✓ The District will achieve the implementation of this budget through effective communication of priorities, multi - disciplinary teamwork, and inter - departmental coordination. ✓ The District values the diversity of its work force for the varied perspectives its members bring in accomplishing our mission. By following these principles, the District will maintain its reputation and position as a recognized steward of water resources. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 9 C. Vision, Mission and Values of the District 1 Our Vision: To be the world's premier water resource agency. Our Mission: To manage and protect water resources of the region by balancing and improving water quality, flood control, natural systems, and water supply. Our Values: Our knowledge, experience and passion set us apart as world- renowned water managers We are committed to the success of all as individuals, as a team, and as an organization We value and expect open, honest, and timely communication Honesty is never compromised We meet our customer's (internal and external) needs with professionalism and integrity Teamwork and sound science are the foundation of our excellence Our diversity is the cornerstone of our strength We are steadfast in our belief and commitment to the District's mission We embrace change by taking informed risks and capitalizing on new opportunities and challenges We do the coolest work on the planet! SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 10 D. Related Reports '4A 1 1611 =� Y The South Florida Environmental Report (SFER) is a major consolidation effort authorized by the Florida Legislature in 2005 -36, Laws of Florida, and Subsection 373.036(7), Florida Statutes. The SFER includes technical information, summarizing available data and findings for the Everglades Protection Area, Lake Okeechobee, Kissimmee River, and coastal ecosystems, as well as project status for annual reports required under various mandates. The District, in partnership with the FDEP, remains fully committed to integrating the many research, planning, regulatory, and construction activities leading to sustainable ecosystems, and the annual publication of the SFER is a major step forward to sound management and restoration of South Florida. The 2010 SFER is posted on the District's website. The following table includes a list of reports consolidated into the SFER (due annually on March 1) that are provided to the State and linked to the Standard Format Tentative Budget Submission. Also included are the District/FDEP contacts and e-mail addresses. Hydrology of the South Florida Environment Wossenu Abtew wabtew @sfwmd.gov Status of Water Quality in the Everglades Protection Area Garry Payne (FDEP) Garry.Payne @dep.state.fl.us Mercury and Sulfur Monitoring, Research and Environmental Assessment in South Florida Mark Gabriel mgabriel @sfwmd.gov Nutrient Source Controls for the South Florida Environment Agnes Ramsey aramsey @sfwmd.gov Performance and Optimization of the Everglades Stormwater Treatment Areas Guy Germain ggermain @sfwmd.gov Ecology of the Everglades Protection Area Fred Sklar fsklar @sfwmd.gov Everglades Restoration Update Wanda Simpson wsimpso @sfwmd.gov Implementation of the Long -Term Plan for Achieving Water Quality Goals in the Everglades Protection Area Tracey Piccone tpiccone @sfwmd.gov Status of Nonindigenous Species in the South Florida Environment LeRoy Rodgers Irodgers @sfwmd.gov Lake Okeechobee Protection Program — State of the Lake and Watershed Tom James tjames @sfwmd.gov Kissimmee Basin Brad Jones bjones @sfwmd.gov Coastal Ecosystems Rick Alleman rallaman @sfwmd.gov Everglades Forever Act Annual Financial Report Steve Poonaisingh spoonais @sfwmd.gov Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Work Plan Report Andrew Kowalsky akowalsk @sfwmd.gov 2011 Priority List and Schedule for Minimum Flows and Levels, Water Reservations and Water Availability Rules Brenda Mills bmills @sfwmd.gov Five -Year Capital Improvements Plan Victor Lopez Vlopez @sfwmd.gov Five -Year Water Resource Development Work Program Patrick Martin pmartin @sfwmd.gov Alternate Water Supply Annual Report Patrick Martin pmartin @sfwmd.gov Florida Forever Work Plan, Annual Update Wanda Simpson wsimpso @sfwmd.gov Land Stewardship Annual Report David Foote dfoote @sfwmd.gov Mitigation Donation Annual Report Marjorie Moore mmoore @sfwmd.gov SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 11 E. Development of the District Budget 1601 The state and five water management districts are faced with many challenges, including declining revenues, but must continue to work efficiently to meet the water resource protection and water supply needs of Florida now and in the future. With this in mind, the primary goal of this year's budget is to ensure effective allocation of fiscal and staff resources that accomplish the District's mission. The Governor's Office, in cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the water management districts, continually reevaluates the budget process to ensure optimal performance from the programs and initiatives of all Florida's water management districts. They encourage the districts to review their mission and regional priorities with an added focus on meeting the future demands of Florida's growth. Further, they challenge the districts to examine the fiscal impacts of reduced spending while still maintaining their primary responsibilities. The District reviews its mission and priorities as part of the strategic planning and budget development process which involves discussion, input and participation from Governing Board members, executive management and resource area managers. Staff presented the proposed FY2011 budget to the Governing Board on June 9, 2010 and the millage rates on July 15, 2010. The District continues to implement its ten -year Strategic Plan and intends to expedite top priorities and planned projects as possible within the constraints of limited resources. The District's broad mission and numerous mandates are included in the Strategic Plan with background, goals, strategies, success indicators, and project deliverables or milestones. The direction and priorities set in the Strategic Plan are also highlighted in an annual work plan. This ensures the connection between the high -level strategic direction and annual activity, and focuses financial and human resources on the most important work efforts. The annual work plan is designed to provide more details on specific major projects planned for FY2011. The program- performance based budgeting approach emphasizes the link between strategic plans, program goals, objectives, outcomes, and annual funding allocations. This approach requires awareness of the agency strategic goals, objectives and outcomes, identification of strategies to achieve these outcomes and the development of performance measures. A program budget allows for a more thorough review and understanding of major District functions. It also allows for better comparisons of activities and choices regarding the allocation of limited resources. The District reports on financial performance and progress toward meeting the short- term project success indicators listed in the annual work plan and the longer -term goals of the Strategic Plan. This follow -up ensures that employees across the agency are focused on the priority work efforts reflected in the work plan. Management provides a status on progress toward completion of major projects to the Governing Board quarterly. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 12 J F. Budget Guidelines a 1611 A 1 4 The Governing Board — with guidance from the Governor, DEP, and the Legislature — sets the tone and direction of the budget by identifying priorities, commitments, and key program goals and objectives. The guidelines and assumptions for developing the FY2010 budget included the following: • District shall adopt continuation millage rates which are projected to generate less tax revenues than the FY2010 level. • Evaluate programs and activities to align them to the Strategic Plan and Work Plan objectives and success indicators. • Prioritize workloads and identify baseline activities that can potentially be reduced. • Ensures that project and process annual plan deliverables are essential to achievement of the Governing Board's directive. • Justifies the level of resources, including staffing, proposed for each budget request by providing outputs and outcomes that will result from the proposed level of required resources. • Conduct a thorough review of on -going contractual services to determine if existing District staff can perform the same services. • Maintain reserves at current year levels for economic stabilization, hurricanes and other contingencies. • Plan the use of one -time fund balances for projects or land acquisition. • Focus ad valorem funds towards mission critical statutorily required functions and activities while searching for reduction opportunities within current operations and contracts. • Complete on -going work in order to prevent or reduce any carry forward dollars to the next budget year. • Determine if any projects may be deferred without impeding the District's mission. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 13 t. 6 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 16111-t Al G. Budget Development Calendar and Milestones 11 Governing Board Preliminary Discussion on Strategic Plan Priorities 1 2010 South Florida Environmental Report submitted to Governor's Office ' 6 FY2011 Budget Kick -off meeting - distributed guidelines /instructions — Oracle Budget System opens for budget requests 14 Draft Strategic Plan to Governing Board 30 Oracle Budget System closes 6 13 May 2010 18 28 1 June 2010 9 1 July 2010 8 19 30 1 August 2010 5 5 8 September 2010 14 21 WRAC Meeting — Draft Strategic Plan Presentation Final Strategic Plan to Governing Board Executive Office initial review meetings with Resource Area Business Services Directors Executive Office final review of FY2011 Work Plan and Budget follow -up issues County Property Appraiser's provide preliminary estimates of Taxable Values (TRIM) Present preliminary FY2011 Budget to Governing Board County Property Appraisers Provide Final Certification of Taxable Values Governing Board approves proposed millage rates Budget presentation to Governor's Office /Legislature DR -420 Forms Sent to County Property Appraisers State Report to Governor /FDEP /Legislature Budget presentation to Governor's Office /Legislature Comments Due Back from Legislature on FY2011 Budget Public Hearing to Adopt FY2011 Tentative Millage and Budget. Certify Agricultural Privilege Tax Rolls. Governor's Office Acceptance /Rejection of Budget Public Hearing to Adopt FY2011 Final Millage, Budget and Work Plan SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 14 161 1AJ Ill. BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS A. Current Year Accomplishments Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan • Successfully negotiated the CERP Master Agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the District. The Master Agreement establishes the general responsibilities of the parties with respect to land acquisition, construction, and operation and maintenance of projects to be implemented under CERP, and sets forth uniform terms to be incorporated by reference in each Project Cooperation Agreement. • Melaleuca Eradication and Other Exotic Plants (implement Biological Controls) — Executed Project Partnership Agreement. • C -111 Spreader Canal — Construction is underway on the Frog Pond Detention Area, Aerojet Canal modifications and S -199 & S -200 Pump Stations. • Indian River Lagoon - South — Commenced construction on C -44 Reservoir /STA. • Lake Trafford Dredging — Dredging is in its final phase with 80% completion estimated by fiscal year end. • Picayune Strand Restoration Project — USACE commenced construction of the Merritt Pump Station and Phase II Road Removal. • North Palm Beach County Part 1 — Completed draft Tentative Selected Plan. • Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands - Draft Project Implementation Report (PIR) /Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published in the Federal Register in April 2010. L -31 E Culvert installation is complete. Construction of Deering Estates has commenced and should be about 35% complete by the end of the fiscal year. • Site 1 Impoundment - The District and the USACE executed an agreement to begin construction of the Fran Reich Preserve. • River of Grass — Developed two models for optimization of water quality and facility infrastructure costs. • Governing Board adopted the water reservation rule for the North Fork of the St Lucie River to fulfill federal and state requirements to proceed with construction of the CERP Indian River Lagoon —South Project. • Initiated rule development for the Caloosahatchee River to support the C -43 West Basin Storage Reservoir project. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 15 a District Everglades 1611 Al • Construction of the Compartments B and C Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) continue in FY2010. A total of six Everglades Construction Project STAs are now in operation. Combined performance since start-up indicates approximately 1,400 metric tons of phosphorus that would have otherwise gone to the Everglades has been removed by the STAs. STA -2 and STA -3/4 continue to perform very well with outflow concentrations in the 15 to 20 ppb range. • Completed construction of the Section 24 Impoundment portion of the Acme Basin B project, which became part of the Long -Term Plan in June 2006; this completes the overall Acme Basin B Diversion project. C -139 Annex Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) operating permit issued Kissimmee River Restoration • Land acquisition is substantially complete for Kissimmee Rivertstoration. Over 100,000 acres were needed and acquired, with approximately 2,240 acres in the process of complex settlement negotiations, condemnation and /or on -going engineering solutions in lieu of acquisition. Of this, over 700 acres is nearing settlement by fiscal year -end. • Several USACE construction projects with District oversight were initiated in 2010 and include Canal C -37 dredging, River Acres Flood Protection, and CSX Railroad Bridge modifications. • Completed installation of 17 well sites for the Pool D Hydrologic Network. The installation of these wells completes the Kissimmee River Restoration hydrologic network so that it now covers the entire restoration area footprint. Data from these wells are used for evaluating hydrologic response (and associated ecological response) to restoration in the Comprehensive Kissimmee River Restoration Evaluation program. • Initiated the Kissimmee Basin Flood Event Model Calibration and Verification Project in conjunction with the USACE. Results from this project will be used to ensure that the top performing operations alternatives for the Kissimmee Basin Modeling and Operations Study provide the federally required flood protection level of service. • Completed additional analyses on East Lake Tohopekaliga in support of the Kissimmee River Water Reservation Rule development. Lake Okeechobee • Lakeside Ranch Stormwater Treatment Area (STA) Project is 40 percent complete. Commenced construction of the S -650 Pump Station which is about 16 percent complete. The STA north part of the project is about 44 percent complete. This project is on schedule for completion in 2012. • Completed the 2009 Lake Istokpoga submerged aquatic vegetation and sediment maps. The emergent vegetation map will also be completed by the end of FY2010. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 16 A 1611 Al '• Treated AWO -5000 acres of torpedograss and mixed exotics (Brazilian pepper, melaleuca, Christmas cassia) this year using funds from Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Also, thousands of acres of the western marsh were patrolled for sparse melaleuca seedlings as maintenance control of the trees in the open marsh. Old World climbing fern was found (and controlled) for the first time in the lake's marsh. More than 500 acres of Luziola (West India marsh grass) have been treated in the lake's western marsh. • L -63N Canal Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Project — Completed the final design specifications for the surface facility refurbishment. Continued negotiation of the Aquifer Exemption with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and received a draft version of the document, indicating that the process had gained approval at the state level. • Commenced implementation of the Hybrid Wetland Treatment Technologies (HWTT) seventh installation at the former location of the HydroMentia Algae Turf Scrubber (ATS) at Grassy Island in the Taylor Creek basin. • Construction of four additional pilot projects under the Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Program ( FRESP) has been completed. FRESP currently has eight constructed rancher pilot projects. Since October 2005, an estimated 8,537 acre -feet of storage has been created on FRESP projects. • Three Dairy Best Available Technology project sites continue to reduce 66% — 100% of phosphorus loading using stormwater retention /detention for reuse and chemical treatment. The Lamb Island Tributary Stormwater Treatment Project continues to provide wetland treatment of stormwater from on -site and off -site sources. • The Eckerd Youth Isolated Wetland Restoration site remains operational with water being pumped from the Williamson Ditch through the wetland, and then discharged to Taylor Creek. The Lemkin Creek Isolated Wetland has been receiving treated stormwater from the two Hybrid Wetlands Treatment projects on the Lemkin Creek site. Desirable wetland plant species are repopulating the former upland areas and the wetland area is increasing. Wetland restoration returns degraded or former wetlands to a close approximation of conditions prior to disturbance. Wetlands, though best known for their natural beauty and wildlife habitat values, also naturally provide many water quality improvement and management benefits. • Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Mapping — Winter mapping was completed and showed a steady increase in the number of sites with plants since the hurricanes of 2004 - 2005. Wetland Soils Nutrient Criteria — Development and Evaluation of "Safe" Soil Phosphorus Storage Capacity Study. Staff from the University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, and District wetland scientists collected additional wetland sediment samples from District projects from the ongoing study to assist in the development of the numeric criteria for phosphorus release from wetland soils. Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRBs) for Passive Management of Phosphorus in the Lake Okeechobee Basin — A pre -PRB installation report which included water SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 17 L 161.1 ' q 1 quality monitoring data from the experimental site and laboratory testing of water treatment residuals and local soil media was completed. Coastal Watersheds • Completed eighteen restoration, water quality, and stormwater improvement projects with benefits to the Florida Keys. • Completed nine projects in Martin and St. Lucie counties for habitat restoration, water quality, and hydrologic improvements. • Completed Ten Mile Canal Water Quality Project. • Completed six restoration, water quality, and stormwater improvement projects on the Lower West Coast. • The Billy's Creek Preserve received the Florida Stormwater Association 2010 Stormwater Project Award for Outstanding Achievement. • Completed independent technical review panel of nitrogen technologies for the C -43 Water Quality Treatment Test Facility design proposals. Modeling & Scientific Support • Completed Water Quality Monitoring Best Practice Evaluation for the following projects: Coastal (FLAB, ROOK, TTI), Collier County, Biscayne Bay, and Dade County; partially (approximately 75 %) completed WCA -2, WCA -3, and the STAs. • Commenced construction of the new Environmental Services Laboratory. • Completed production of the 2010 South Florida Environmental Report (SFER), which was delivered timely to the Florida Legislature, Governor and other key stakeholders by March 1, 2010. • Released version 6.3.1 of the South Florida Water Management Model code, version 2.2.0 of the Regional Simulation Model (RSM), and version 4.3.3 of the RSM Graphical User Interface. • Provided support to District water management operations and water resources programs; including computer modeling simulations for operational planning, as well as C -4 Flood Mitigation and Kissimmee System flood control computer modeling simulations for operational alternative analysis. Operations & Maintenance • Capital projects completed in FY2010 include: S -129 & S -131 Pump Station Repowering, S -63`d street bridge demolition, S -127 & S -133 Pump Bearing Replacement, G -92 Structure Replacement, S -6 Gearbox Replacement, G -136 Gate and Culvert Replacement, S -39 Concrete Repair, Clewiston Field Station Generator Replacement, S -49 Gate Operator Replacement, L -19 Bridges (1,2,3) and S -60 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 18 1611 Al 1 Gate Operator Replacement. The Structure Inspection Program, Fall Protection Structures Program and Bridge Services Program continued throughout the year. • Structure Inspection Program -STAs: 28 Phase 1 Reports; 8 Phase II Reports C &SF: 16 Phase 1 Reports; 3 Phase II Reports; 317 Report Data Loading • Performed 2 miles of tree and debris clearing in the Big Cypress Basin Field Station Area. • Maintain 1,174 SCADA sites annually. Another approximately 74 are expected due to Compartment B & C and Lakeside Ranch. • Introduced 47,000 weed - eating grass carp into canals • Treated O &M 5,500 aquatic acres and 26,000 terrestrial acres • Treated Stormwater Treatment Areas 5,500 aquatic acres • Treated Land Stewardship 30,000 terrestrial acres • The Instrumentation Maintenance and Data Collection group responded to 1,261 malfunction requests and resolved 1,194 Water Supply • Completed District -wide Year -Round Landscape Irrigation Conservation Rulemaking that supports an enduring water conservation ethic that provides for no more than 3 days per week of irrigation. • The District completed Florida Friendly Landscaping evaluations and reports of seven District owned facilities pursuant to Leading by Example in the Comprehensive Water Conservation Plan (CWCP). Organized a Water Conservation Expo and Vendor Fair, in partnership with American Water Works Association (AWWA), held in the District Auditorium on March 16, 2010. The event brought together more than 140 water use and conservation professionals from throughout our 16 counties and beyond. This year the Expo, themed "Water Conservation in the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) Sector', featured numerous presentations and 15 vendors of conservation products and services of interest to this user category. Initiated implementation of the Water Conservation Hotel and Motel Program (Water CHAMP) in the District through a pilot roll -out of the program in the Florida Keys. Have enrolled 17 hotels and motels with a combined 669 rooms. • Increased awareness and knowledge of Conserve Florida Water Clearinghouse by conducting four workshops demonstrating full service scope and resources available to public water utilities including the EZ Guide. • Rolled out the Florida Water Star program in the District's Kissimmee Basin and Upper East Coast regions including hosting Florida Water Star Residential Certifier SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 19 16 t Training program. Florida Water Star is a voluntary certification program for new and existing residential and commercial developments encouraging water efficiency in household appliances, plumbing fixtures, irrigation systems and landscapes. • Initiated 5 -year updates to the Upper East Coast and Lower West Coast regional water supply plans. Have conducted three stakeholder public meetings in each region, developed population and demand projections, drafted and distributed Chapters 1 & 2 to stakeholders for review and comment, completed drafts of other chapters and consolidated support document for internal review, and conducted 21 meetings with local government elected bodies. • Conducted 21 Great Water Odyssey workshops, which are a computer -based interactive curriculum for third, fourth and fifth -grade students to teach students about reading, science, language arts, geography, history, math and conserving water. These teacher workshops reached 6,500 elementary students. • The District funded 13 projects in the Water Savings Incentive (WaterSlP) program during fiscal year 2010 for $460,000. These projects have a potential estimated water savings of 238 million gallons per year (MGY). • FPL Monitoring Plan approved by Governing Board to evaluate the effects of the Update of Nuclear Units 3 & 4 as required by the Power Plant Siting Act • Completed oversight of well construction and testing activities associated with the approved Monitoring Plan for FPL's Turkey Point Power Plant (Units 3 and 4). • Completed Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) for Monroe, Miami -Dade, and Broward counties for updated topography for Climate Change Initiative and Water Supply Plans. • Completed well construction oversight and reporting for Emergency Operations Center (EOC) emergency water supply well • Completed next round of comments regarding the Site Certification Application for Units 6 and 7 of the proposed FPL Turkey Point Power Plant • Executed Operational Agreement with City of Lake Worth regarding its Surficial Aquifer Wellfield to minimize effects of saltwater intrusion Regulation • The District provided timely evaluation and review of 1,560 Environmental Resource and 2,030 Water Use Permit Applications. Continued to successfully implement all delegation provisions of Section 373.083 (5), F.S. through the establishment of a monthly noticing and meeting process that provides enhanced opportunities for public comment on pending Water Use and Environmental Resource Permit applications. Continued to provide compliance inspections /investigations for both Environmental Resource and Water Use Permits and take enforcement actions when necessary. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 20 1611 Al • Continued the Construction Certification effort by accepting 1,200 construction completion certifications while reducing backlog by 600 per year. • Continue to implement both the ERP and Water Use Agricultural Permitting and Compliance teams to provide additional technical review to agricultural permits throughout the District. • Completed Phase I of the ePermitting enhancement project. Payment of permit application processing fees is now easier with the option to make payment via additional submittals. Customers can subscribe to notices by application and /or permit number; and permit status has been included on the Application /Permit search screen. • Adopted changes to Chapter 40E -1, increasing permit fees for Environmental Resource Permits based on CPI. Mission Support (Administrative) • Implemented WebEOC in production and successfully piloted the system through the annual Hurricane Freddy exercise. • Continued the implementation of the Budget Module of SAP to develop the budget, strategic plan and annual work plan. • Received Government Finance Officers Association national Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. • Obtained Unqualified Opinion on District's FY2009 Financial Statements (CAFR). • IRIS Simplification / Data Warehouse Project — created a consolidated data warehouse for land data and financial data for enrichment and reporting needs. • STAR Project — Creation of a new vegetation management database for Stormwater Treatment Area Operations. • Completed two major 2,500 hour overhauls of the District Bell Helicopters and completed scheduled corrosion repairs, resurfacing and painting of the District fixed wing aircraft. • Implemented District -wide employee skill survey • Launched Cost Avoidance portal based system to capture data on cost savings resulting from non - negotiated procurement transactions SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 21 1q, A 1 B. Major Budget Objectives and Priorities The District's objective is to prepare a budget that is policy driven, accountable, and responsive to the Governor, Department of Environmental Protection, Legislature, taxpayers and the ecosystem needs of central and south Florida. District's goals and objectives guided the development of the work plan and budget. Priorities were selected as part of the budget planning and development process. The Strategic Plan and the proposed FY2011 budget include the following Governing Board priorities: Restore the Northern and Southern Everglades by: • Expanding and improving water storage capacity and water quality treatment • Incorporating the River of Grass land acquisition into restoration efforts • Completing construction of existing key projects • Coordinating with federal partners in considering potential climate change and sea level rise on restoration plans • Implementing the Long -Term Plan and other cost - effective solutions to improve water quality, reduce nutrient loads and achieve water quality standards The Everglades restoration budget is $678.4 million which represents 63 percent of the District's proposed budget. This amount includes fund balance and proceeds from the first issuance of COPS in November 2006 which is budgeted to be used primarily for capital projects and land acquisition. Refurbish, replace, improve and manage the regional water management system by: • Implementing the 50 -Year Plan • Incorporating new structures into the system • Inventorying, prioritizing and retrofitting coastal and other water control structures in response to sea level rise • Coordinating with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on levee inspections and improvements • Coordinating with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to repair the Herbert Hoover Dike • Considering new water quality standards in future structure operations $60 million of ad valorem has been allocated to regional water management infrastructure refurbishment. This amount is part of the Operations and Maintenance Program budget of $163.3 million, which represents 15.2 percent of the proposed budget. Meet the current and future demands of water users and the environment by: • Developing and implementing regional water supply plans in coordination with local governments • Using reservation and allocation authority to protect water for the natural system • Creating incentives for alternative water supply and conservation • Utilizing regulatory and compliance authority SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 22 161 1 A 1 • Coordinating with local governments and utilities to address potential sea level rise impacts on coastal well fields This priority supports development of water supply projects in cooperation with utilities, local government and the state. The water supply (including water use permitting) budget is $19.9 million which represents 1.8 percent of the proposed budget. Retain and recruit a high - quality, diverse workforce by continuing to recognize the value of employees SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 23 C. Ade4uacy 16LI I of Fiscal Resources Al The South Florida Water Management District's responsibilities continue to increase in scope and magnitude while the District's ability to generate revenue through its primary source - ad valorem property taxes - is limited by statutory and constitutional millage caps. Additionally, the devaluation of properties within the District's 16 counties have resulted in less ad valorem revenues being projected for FY2011 than the current year and reflects over $150 million reduction from FY2008 levels. Since the state has also been impacted by economic factors resulting in declining revenues, the amounts appropriated by the state for District projects in FY2011 are much lower than prior years. The proposed FY2011 budget reflects an estimated 13.2 percent reduction in ad valorem revenues due to real estate market conditions. This amounts to about $60.9 million which are reflected in decreases in water quality projects for estuaries, Everglades restoration projects, Everglades Stormwater Treatment Areas and long -term plan. Prior year fund balance is being used for projects and other non - recurring expenditures. The District's budget includes fund balance reserves for land acquisition and capital projects. Reductions in state funds are reflected primarily in Everglades Land acquisition, surface water improvement and other water resources projects. The FY2011 appropriation from the Save Our Everglades Trust Fund remains at $47 million as in FY2010, which was reduced from $194 million in FY2008. Of this amount, $38 million is contingent upon the state's receipt of Medicaid funds from the Federal Government in order to release other state funds for Everglades Restoration. There are no new state appropriations for alternative water supply or water quality projects from the Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund; however the proposed budget includes $250,000 and $75,672 respectively from prior year amounts. No FY2011 state funds were appropriated for Water projects (Community Budget Issue Requests). The proposed budget includes $1.8 million prior year state funds for local stormwater, water quality improvement and other projects. Lake Okeechobee prior year fund balance of $10.2 million is also included. In summary, the water management and ecosystem restoration challenges facing South Florida may require more resources than are available through the District's traditional ad valorem revenue sources. As a result, the District is committed to pursuing alternative revenue sources and working cooperatively with federal, state, and local partners to identify funding options as well as leveraging existing resources to best address the water resource challenges that lie ahead. Like the State and other local governments, the District faces difficult decisions this budget year, but the residents of South Florida can rely on this agency to administer their tax dollars responsibly and efficiently as we continue to manage and protect the water resources of the region. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 24 n., 4 1. Overview D. Budget Summary • The South Florida Water Management District encompasses all or part of sixteen counties, covering a total area of 17,930 square miles (30 percent of the state's land area), and spans from Orlando to Key West. About 43 percent of the state's population, or approximately 7.5 million people, live within the District's boundaries. There are two primary basins contained within the District's boundaries, the Okeechobee Basin and the Big Cypress Basin. The Okeechobee Basin is based on the sprawling Kissimmee - Okeechobee - Everglades ecosystem, which stretches from Central Florida's Chain of Lakes to Lake Okeechobee and south to the Florida Keys. The Big Cypress Basin includes all of Collier and part of Monroe counties, the Big Cypress National Preserve and the 10,000 Islands. The Tentative Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 Budget total is $1,076,502,825; $458.8 million (- 29.9 %) lower than the current amended Fiscal Year 2009 -2010 budget of $1,535,283,170. This decrease is primarily due to lower funding levels for land acquisition and capital projects. The District's largest individual revenue sources are ad valorem taxes, state funding and prior year COPS proceeds. The projection of ad valorem revenue included in the tentative Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 budget is based on current millage rates which are below rolled -back rates, in a time of declining property values. Overall, projected ad valorem revenues in the tentative Fiscal Year 2010- 2011 budget are $399,025,958 (37.1 %) of total projected revenues, compared to $459,945,322 (30.0 %) in Fiscal Year 2009 -2010. Total anticipated state funds in the tentative Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 budget is $118,588,779 (11.02% of total budget); and the total federal funding projected is $86,825 (0.01% of total budget). In the current amended Fiscal Year 2009 -2010 budget, the total state funding is $145,108,307 (9.45% of total budget); the total local funding is $3,600,000 (0.23% of total budget); and the total federal funding is $327,852 (0.02% of total budget). The revenue sources that make up the remaining portion of the Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 and Fiscal Year 2009 -2010 budgets are Certificate of Participation proceeds, Agricultural taxes, Carryover, Miscellaneous Revenues and Permit Fees (51.9% for Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 and 60.3% for Fiscal Year 2009 -2010 of total budget). SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 25 16 V. A 1 2. Three -Year Revenue Comparison Pei FY2010 -11 Revenue by Source Ag Tax COPS State ...tee.. alorem .11M oWa OL9M OFMdud MAdVdmun ECWrVvm MM*cs nmw ■PWMkF*x OCw0' OtFaitldPINOe OAlft T� FY2009 -10 Revenue by Source An Tay State COP! 44.849E rem OSM6 OLOCY Mod" OUVY 8c —t'"" al"t WWMM spw"F*" DcwwkMO"OPwft"" OAdPr Tu SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 26 TH EE -YEAR 1611 Al A REVENUE, EXPENDITURE AND PERSONNEL TABLE REVENUES FY 2008/2009 Actual Audited FY 2009/2010 Current Amended FY 2010/2011 PROPOSED Difference in $ FY09 /10 -- FY10/11 % of Change FY09 /10 -- FY10/11 Non - dedicated Revenues Carryover 57,860,182 88,024,689 30,164,507 52.1% Ad Valorem Taxes 434,178,917 383,313,963 332,531,728 50,782,235 - 13.2% Permit & License Fees 3,382,505 2,933,950 2,583,000 350,950 -12.0% Local Revenues 3,000,000 - _ _ State Revenues 126,888 - 363,000 363,000 100.0% Federal Revenues 7,347,848 - - _ - Miscellaneous Revenues 21,102,232 10,254,087 10,713,000 458,913 4.5% Non - dedicated Revenues Subtotal 469,138,390 454,362,182 434,215,417 (20,146,765) -4.4% Dedicated Revenues Carryover - 119,535,248 297,938,661 178,403,413 149.2% Ad Valorem Taxes 86,575,163 76,631,359 66,494,230 10,137,129 - 13.2% Permit & License Fees 3,155,827 19,000 19,000 - 0.0% Local Revenues - 3,600,000 - 3,600,000 - 100.0% Ag Privilege Tax 11,675,508 11,630,000 11,100,000 530,000 -4.6% Ecosystem Management Trust Fund 5,475,176 1,080,030 - (1,080,030) - 100.0% FDOT /Miti ation - - _ _ Water Protection & Sustainability Trust Fund 7,363,215 4,985,726 325,672 (4,660,054) -93.5% Water Management Lands Trust Fund 8,133,639 6,912,397 6,912,397 - 0.0% SWIM Trust Fund - - _ Florida Forever 8,289,538 8,520,000 1,575,000 6,945,000 -81.5% Save Our Everglades Trust Fund 38,416,555 116,043,865 103,601,924 (12,441,941) -10.7% Other State Revenue 15,707,035 5,566,289 3,810,786 1,755,503 -31.5% Alligator Alley Tolls 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 0.0% Federal Revenues 1,742,283 327,852 86,825 241,027 -73.5% Certificate of Participation COPS /Loan - 688,443,065 111,548,777 (576,894,288) -83.8% Miscellaneous Revenues 30,942,392 35,626,157 36,874,136 1,247,979 3.5% Dedicated Revenues Subtotal 219,476,331 1,080,920,988 642,287,408 (438,633,580) -40.6% TOTAL REVENUES 688,614,721 1,535,283,170 1,076,502,825 458,780,345 - 29.9% EXPENDITURES Salaries and Benefits 177,895,341 187,977,408 191,310,099 3,332,691 1.8% Other Personal Services 72,612,719 63,942,157 59,584,381 (4,357,776) -6.8% Operating Expenses 92,199,683 149,802,921 137,576,138 12,226,783 -8.2% Operating Capital Outlay 41,741,019 29,854,824 17,441,168 (12,413,656) - 41.6% Fixed Capital Outlay 114,527,335 923,833,364 263,611,393 660,221,971 - 71.5% Interagency Expenditures 60,022,636 62,498,335 22,082,488 (40,415,847) -64.7% Debt 45,529,798 90,156,117 44,116,973 46,039,144 - 51.1% Reserves - 27,218,044 340,780,185 313,562,141 1152.0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 604,528,530 1,535,283,170 1,076,502,825 (458,780,345) -29.9% PERSONNEL Full -time Equivalents 1,828 1,842 1,842 0.0% Contract/Other - - - - - TOTAL PERSONNEL 1,828 1,842 1,842 0.0% SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 27 1611-1-IAI ` 3. Major Revenue Budget Variances Non - dedicated Revenues Carryover + 52.1 The increase is tied to a higher projection of available non - recurring ad valorem tax balances. Staff is making final estimates of available ad valorem balances, which will change this variance for the adopted budget. Ad Valorem Taxes — 13.2% Reductions in ad valorem taxes are due primarily to decreases in property values. Permit & License Fees — 12.0 This change reflects a decrease in the number of environmental resource and water use permit applications anticipated by the District. Dedicated Revenues Carryover + 149.2% This is mostly due to an increase in the future capital project reserves for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration and District Everglades programs. Ad Valorem Taxes — 13.2% Reductions in ad valorem taxes are due primarily to decreases in property values. Local Revenues — 100.0% This decrease is the result of a reduction in a non - recurring grant agreement with the Florida Inland Navigation District for Manatee Pocket dredging. Ecosystem Management Trust Fund — 100.0% This funding change is a result of no new appropriations for water resource projects for FY2010 -2011. Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund — 93.5% This change reflects no new funding being provided by the State for alternative water supply projects. The FY2010 -2011 budget consists of prior year balances. Florida Forever — 81.5 The District did receive new Florida Forever funding for FY2010 -2011 but at a lower level when compared to FY2010. The FY2010 Florida Forever budget was from the remainder of the State's FY2009 appropriations. Save Our Everglades Trust Fund — 10.7% This change reflects a decrease in balances from prior years that are budgeted in the FY2011 budget. Federal Revenue — 73.5% This variance reflects a decrease in non - recurring revenue from NRCS for the Wetlands Reserve Program and from FEMA for the flood mapping projects. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 28 Certificates of Participation (COPS) — 83.8/ 1 611 Al This decrease is due to the FY2010 planned acquisition of 73,000 acres for Everglades restoration, and financing this land purchase through the issuance of COPS for approximately $536.5 million. COPS budgeted in FY11 reflect residual balances from the Series 2006 COPS issuance, which are being used for the construction of Compartments B and C. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 29 m L cm 2 O W c co (1) L ♦O vJ LL Q� QN� lJ.. 4 9L A {. O O EA M CEO I-- O W CO r 00 O M ,+ -s M ONO lO N O In LO O N J . L• O co Ln h LO LO Lo LO n co CO co M O 00 CO h O O O N Q to CO M r O coo co O � 69 (0 60 � M Lo 60 e» It rfl 60 60. 60 C O M N E O N N Ca C (0 � Q N LO V M to a7 co O 7 O LO N LC) O C o ti O) O N O C O 7 LO m O N co � 'O O M N M N C (6 U C OO r OO r CO lO O I 00 CO co LO N m LNO LO ,0 N y 't N M N M CD O N C_ C6 N La J O C N m O O co N a M L(J O C >OO � co 0 OOi co O 000 O) to O 0)i 'y .9 > N CO N CA N CO 0 O N .7 C) (V N LO CO 06 Ln QOM U y O 00 Cl) Q)a O co co tt co COO O O N (D @ C 00 � 00 O � 't O n 0 7 0) C0 (D LOO O C6 le � m N O O vi It N O C= LO Ln LO N 'c} LO M I,- N It O 'c} N O O N LL r LO O Q O CO co OD d' M O LO O OO O N CD N O CO N I,- N O r M O N st Ch co co f- N O 'O C � - jm ° 2 cm Z r- I- W G a) j N ll :. , _ in C W a 2 F- LL O H c N N � O r � C f6 C 7 v 0) a a) E J rn CD 0 LL N > U U N LL CA 06 N •O CO C N to C N C 0) N C O O cc C N N C 0 '� .0 E F 7 O Z H cu cu `_) C 7 Q) j Z H (D 7 F— a� 2 M LL > N w a' T d CD E y aai O>) O E _� aCi E _rn c U E m a>> p O 0_' CO A O O ad — y � d 2 H � � > _� Q > � (x¢ a 0 � C > "O U Q ¢�1 a i ems+ CO � LL _N U Q Q v J Q O W �LL CO C6 N LL co L O _O Q LL O co a) m m a O (O V C V7 N 01 N L U v c U- LL U a� U (C N C N 3 U W ibis A I e M N Of (C a ,,c-,, r °'M M n J N C O 4 (O O O CO CO Val Z' N co V). ffi C n O Cl i' O m m C ti u N 0 m C Cl) O C ca E Q n a U (n O m O CD O 3 N (O O O C O O n f0 cz CO O) Cl) O CO (D N 'O O CO O_ N (O V M (O CO l9 C C l0 N gr(no n 04 CIJ O 0) co LO (3) sns}} (00 (0 J O c w rn It O coo O C O O N Cl) ° 3 ccoo � o 7 (� n (O Q O M N N N Q D D- O N G7 COO (f) M r Ucc C 0 0 C M M 7 m 0 C 0 — n tN M 3IXccoO cM coo a. (0 O ^ a LU O = z N Lu W O y 'U > m F- co d d' co O O N � C 0 U m w N � y U � O (O V C V7 N 01 N L U v c U- LL U a� U (C N C N 3 U W ibis A I e M N Of (C a Al N M (U M t0 a C O .y An E 7 N lT 7 m tw�0 c N H 0 C) } LL LL U) y ' N co W -* M to O O O O O O O M O Vi CO N r-- M O EA O O to M M w O O N 0 LO to h .. r' N M O O O O n M O 00 N O Oc O _O J N O M M M e- O O O M O co lf) too N r- O N M m co O O I- N M v O N M L to O to O M M LO O to O M �fl It CO O 't M tO M Vi Efl 4 V) (0 Vi M 64 O O V) N 63 C6 co Ln Cl) U � - Vi 64 V3 Vi r` c c o o 'T Cli N (D (O to c vi Cli n rn m m C ld .O � a L LO LQ co M t0 �t fU h 7 M � O tf) C ° (D N t0 m Go co C10 co O N 7 M n tLOO M N _ N N V y OD M O O r- O t0 O C N N It co M M O O CO C t[N N 7 o M N N M O S v y o0 OO a0 N � a0 h a c �> M N M CO N •�J 0 O C y O co 7 M a O co CO It O C) lt) It n O O O O m O (D N C m .Zc '7 O O h M O CO N O O O N C O LO It co O O O w O In M C° N to M to t70 M co N O P' M M M M O O h Iq "It N Ln Q O M CO M tb a (Da -O O C O M w O O V) O O O O O Cl) O 00 "t O O O O N 0 O O ` m c N LO O O LO O M O O O O O M B co 1- h O co O V) M N O N co N cc o C N O't C Cl) N co N t0 O d• O M O N CM N a 00 co LO co 0) M O O M_ co �t c M M N n t0 M O N O co V C 1p 7 � W O y ` v C Z j co y j U- n W G y j LL - N c d Q' m c m LL. ~ to v ° c a �' a) E J m m c f0 a N X LL N CL) fU m U m X LL °) '6 N m c y m U fU c m w c (D 3 y a) c � rn a a m p m U)) c W a) x m c m c o c °- E a) c rn > m ° F c m d w m 2 ~ 2 y c > o °'o ~ is c a) 2 m m tL a�i > 0 > a) J N > a) a) G a) J O E .U°). ° c t0 2 W m a m N > ca C o c j € a) $ j € a to ~O w? m a) m U U ° (A O N a Q a a Li U a W LL LLL U) O a LL U N M (U M t0 a C O .y An E 7 N lT 7 m tw�0 c N H 0 C) } LL LL U) `m a� � T O �- (D O � a C r E 1 O O O 26 cc .r- L) o) a M c O LL V Lo in `O m In a� d C O (n a. �a S 0 U � N 1611 Al I M M N O) f0 a c O .N N E d O) a m a� c N I- 0 0 N LL LL U) oco co Q C F' O Ip 69 r EA C in LO N C O N - h OD E N 5 M M CO Co C N l0 Q U M 00 ca N It 00 LO If) 7 O O O c O CI O m (0 co 7 N (0 O) N It In N a c c � In O 0 l`6 C r N N N 'M -� 0 O r N c to N � � M M ap O C O in O LO In N O V 10 O a�a � O �mc v) � f0 O C •_' t N N f00 O M Q' lcd a CO a rte.. 0 UJ W W co �i w � a Me w WS O U H 'a O `m a� � T O �- (D O � a C r E 1 O O O 26 cc .r- L) o) a M c O LL V Lo in `O m In a� d C O (n a. �a S 0 U � N 1611 Al I M M N O) f0 a c O .N N E d O) a m a� c N I- 0 0 N LL LL U) O N O Q O L a r r O N I O r O N LL L O E L a 0 a 13 4) V L O a _ LL > d O _ d d w 1. M a cn (D 0) m a c 0 E N rn CD a) > .m C a) I- C) 0 } LL LL LL U) O O M O O O EA O O O Vi O to N h h O Cfl NO O 41 N CO w O O (0 M . O N C O f0 M O m h O ,. .�.J ., co M O O N N .. n O O O M CO � Q 0 N 0) vi M vy O, v! ,� LO CA (0 O a0 U% O � 6R 00 04 N (A V3 dM9 O— N C O a) P E LO N CA 0) (O 0 a) y 0) 00 N ((00 M m m C M � E Cl) m � (D o 0 L U d co O m a O r N O C ° D) (n D) (n m O M Ch a) OD Cli It 0 0 (D N N ° ° 0 M o• � m U C (°D (C (°n) 0 0 y O LO (n M M N O M N _ O O O m n C y O c m CO M 0 m 0. Og U C 0 co n 00 N O N O O O O It N O O O O r� r O O C m 1[ O 0 (D (0 O c3i CO O h C 0 C O O N �Y N (n �_ C) co O > N > O (MO � C N (O co O h O_ (LO Cl) * r— h M 0-.2 Q M h N M O a m M M co M co M co � O (f) CQ O U C (C!j N O O C O (D O co O N O (0 CO N >>m > N C CD (f) COD M 4m O (0 O M 0 LL 0000 co O O O C C C co It M _M M O (M (� h co N N O O M o � ° Z5 v 73 > c U. H j m m W arn ? ~ v ~ U W 7 ° a y v m : �` c O N N > rn a) c , a+ w a� E a c u) En > m m CD m U U N m LL O) 06 c m a m C rn N U > a) a X N a) N 7 Of C m C 0 a) C m C ° (D O X m N C N N X m c m C '@ c E N c 0 y 01 > N o ~ 7 C m a N O H fU C 7 a) O Z z H a) 7 U °) 0) CO LL > °) > Q' >. � (D >� ° 7 E j 0 0 0 E m > c E m cD > rn d E °) o m � o w " m its Q a°) c a N a) m w m U U J � Q d N LL U Q d Q W U LL M O Q LL U M a cn (D 0) m a c 0 E N rn CD a) > .m C a) I- C) 0 } LL LL LL U) occ a) v T c � o c y CL N E 2 O m w L U� yr c co (i to CL) U r (n O co C c O Ca v v) � n. � O U r N 1611 Al I LO M N O m O 0 N LL co co 0 J N (Iq 0 (co O EA O CO N CN CO N E uJ It N lCC l0 CD .0 C M N Q co L U n N m (o LO M N (co o O c O W O f0 CO I-t CO O j CO N d1 N O N � •O O O C y O h N N }N C > > ao N C_ m f0 J N O c m 00 Cl) c(o� Cl O c o 3: v Co 0 y 7 @ U 00 01 O (.> a 1n (NO Q D a. o c o 0 ` m c (o (o a� rno o 1-- N c 0 ^ 1-- 0 m mg r a +m.. O U UJ W W Cb D Z > W U � 'a 0 occ a) v T c � o c y CL N E 2 O m w L U� yr c co (i to CL) U r (n O co C c O Ca v v) � n. � O U r N 1611 Al I LO M N O m O 0 N LL co 1611A1 4 5. Proposed Millage Rates The Governing Board policy direction was to levy continuation millage rates, the same tax rates as levied in FY2010. At the July Governing Board meeting, the tentative millage rates were set at the continuation millage level. Due to the declining property valuations, this is a reduction from the rolled -back rate ranging from 11.75% to 13.02% (see table below). The rolled -back rate is the tax rate that will generate the same tax revenue as levied in the prior fiscal year, exclusive of new construction. The rolled -back rates noted in the table are greater than the tax rates levied in FY2010 due to declining tax roll valuations within the District boundaries. Tax levies are set for each of the two basins within the District, the Okeechobee Basin, and the Big Cypress Basin. This rate is then combined with an overall "District -at- large" millage rate of 0.2549 mills, which determines the total millage to be assessed upon property owners within each basin. The current Okeechobee Basin tax rate is 0.6240 and the Big Cypress Basin (BCB) tax rate is 0.4814 mills. This represents about 62 cents and 48 cents per $1,000 of taxable value. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 36 4. 16111 FISCAL YEAR 2008 -2009 A1 FISCAL YEAR 2010 -2011 Three -year Ad Valorem Tax Comparison 0.2549 0.2549 0.2549 AD VALOREM TAX COMPARISON DISTRICT -AT -LARGE FISCAL YEAR 2008 -2009 FISCAL YEAR 2009 -2010 FISCAL YEAR 2010 -2011 Milla a Rate 0.2549 0.2549 0.2549 Rolled -Back Rate 0.2724 0.2941 0.2892 Percent Change from Rolled -Back Rate -6.42% - 13.33% - 11.86% Current Year Gross Taxable Value for Operating Purposes $894,742,340,056 1 $783,789,691,862 $687,151,905,825 Current Year Net New Taxable Value $26,187,149,086 1 $17,365,770,311 $9,022,843,395 Current Year Adjusted Taxable Value $868,555,190,970 $766,423,921,551 1 $678,129,062,430 AD VALOREM TAX COMPARISON OKEECHOBEE BASIN FISCAL YEAR 2008 -2009 FISCAL YEAR 2009 -2010 FISCAL YEAR 2010 -2011 Milla a Rate 0.2797 0.2797 0.2797 Rolled -Back Rate 0.2987 0.3233 0.3170 Percent Change from Rolled -Back Rate -6.36% - 13.49% - 11.77% Current Year Gross Taxable Value for Operating Purposes $815,508,327,399 $713,254,864,039 $625,235,525,516 Current Year Net New Taxable Value $23,762,997,491 $16,180,604,533 $8,025,984,250 Current Year Adjusted Taxable Value $791,745,329,908 $697,074,259,506 1 $617,209,541,266 AD VALOREM TAX COMPARISON BIG CYPRESS BASIN FISCAL YEAR 2008 -2009 FISCAL YEAR 2009 -2010 FISCAL YEAR 2010 -2011 Milla a Rate 0.2265 0.2265 0.2265 Rolled -Back Rate 0.2436 0.2571 0.2604 Percent Change from Rolled -Back Rate -7.02% - 11.90% - 13.02% Current Year Gross Taxable Value for Operating Purposes $79,234,012,657 $70,534,827,823 $61,916,380,309 Current Year Net New Taxable Value $2,424,151,595 $1,185,165,778 $996,859,145 Current Year Adjusted Taxable Value $76,809,861,062 1 $69,349,662,045 1 $60,919,521,164 AD VALOREM TAX COMPARISON EVERGLADES CONSTRUCTION PROJECT FISCAL YEAR 2008 -2009 FISCAL YEAR 2009 -2010 FISCAL YEAR 2010 -2011 Milla a Rate 0.0894 0.0894 0.0894 Rolled -Back Rate 0.0955 0.1033 0.1013 Percent Change from Rolled -Back Rate -6.39% - 13.46% - 11.75% Current Year Gross Taxable Value for Operating Purposes $815,508,327,399 $713,254,864,039 $625,235,525,516 Current Year Net New Taxable Value $23,762,997,491 1 $16,180,604,533 $8,025,984,250 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 37 6. Three -Year Expenditure Summary by EOG Program Regul LIM Z0AW OU FY20010 -11 Program Expenditures Dist, Mgmt & Adm 1611 Al p 4 Water Res_ Plan_ & Monit forks .64% DWdw Rasomeas PWvilnparMMon ANUM O"WaRlmftsboaden and PubNaWorks GOpsratlons and MatdenwKe afLwW* wW Works no....r� OOuba h OMwmg msnl and AdmkiWOon Reg O&M of Lands&' 15.13% FY2009 -10 Program Expenditures Dist. Mgmt. &Adm. & Public Works Wow A90OWo98 P$ww*lGw4 ReWor.lmwWPubft** r a0pssswMwwll , I mgftwM.wwwwk. OftwAm arr o0ut..eh OMwwpsrnwKandAdndnl.lr.lbn SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 38 1611 A 1 Three -Year Expenditure Summary by Program PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES Fiscal Year 2008 -2009 (Audited) Fiscal Year 2009 -2010 (Current Amended) Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 (PROPOSED) Change in $ from FY09 /10 to 10111 % of change from FY09 /10 to 10/11 1.0 Water Resources Planning and Monitoring 88,352,137 83,692,762 73,687,600 (10,005,161) 42.0% 1.1- District Water Management Planning 34,547,685 33,274,658 18,490,932 (14,783,726) -44.4% i 1.1.1 Water Supply Planning I; 7 j 6,019,473 4,647,287 5,713,579 1,066,292 22.9% { j 1.1.2 Minimum Flows and Levels E 1 976,902 878,992 445,811 (433,181) - 49.3% 1.1.3 Other Water Resources Planning 27,551,310 27,748,379 12,331,542 (15,416,837) 55.6'/0 j 1.2 - Research, Data Collection, Analysis and Monitoring 53,158,369 49,678,587 54,609,980 4,931,393 9.9% 1.3 - Technical Assistance 646,083 739,517 586,688 (152,829) - 20.7% 1.4 - Other Water Resources Planning and Monitoring Activities 2.0 Acquisition, Restoration and Public Works 234,883,780 1,060,245,839 620,538,103 (439,707,736) -41.5° 2.1- Land Acquisition 2.2 Water Source Development 20,633,618 14,026,360 5,412,729 (8,613,631) -61.4% 2.2.1 Water Resource Development Projects 1,571,739 1,264,455 722,997 (541,458) - 42.8% 2.2.2 Water Supply Development Assistance 19,061,879 12,761,905 4,689,732 (8,072,173) -63.3% 2.2.3 Other Water Source Development Activities 2.3 - Surface Water Projects 210,751,308 1,042,294,453 613,131,823 (429,162,630) 41.2% 2.4 - Other Cooperative Projects 2,819,597 1,399,226 1,443,551 44,325 3.2% 2.5 - Facilities Construction and Major Renovations 679,257 2,525,800 550,000 (1,975,800) - 78.2% 2.6 - Other Acquisition and Restoration Activities - 3.0 Operation and Maintenance of Lands and Works 165,569,862 232,236,975 218,267,142 (13,969,833) -6.00/ 3.1- Land Management 14,458,151 26,446,046 20,033,582 (6,412,464) - 24.2% I 3.2 -Works i 118,350,311 170,364,761 162,223,482 (8,141,279) 4.8% 3.3 - Facilities 6,937,850 7,600,360 7,204,749 (395,611) -5.2% 3.4 - Invasive Plant Control 20,149,001 22,084,276 23,090,201 1,005,925 4.6% 3.5 - Other Operation and Maintenance Activities 5,674,547 5,741,532 5,715,128 (26,404) -0.5% 4.0 Regulation 25,839,797 25,684,909 29,208,990 3,524,081 13.7% 4.1- Consumptive Use Permitting 5,690,468 6,159,258 6,349,390 190,132 3.1% 4.2 - Water Well Construction Permitting and Contractor Licensing 4.3 - Environmental Resource and Surface Water Permitting 12,919,329 12,311,615 12,600,952 289,337 2.4% i 4.4 - Other Regulatory and Enforcement Activities 7,230,000 7,214,036 10,258,648 3,044,612 42.2% SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 39 T -T r i n Three -Year Expenditure Summary by Program (cont'dJ 6 1 r 1 PROGRAMS AND ACT I f IES Fscal Year 2008.2009 (Audited) Fiscal Year 2009.2010 (Current Amended) Fscal Year 2010.2011 (PROPOSED) Change in $ from FY09110 to 10111 % of change from FY09110 to 10111 5.0 Outreach 6,616,054 5,655,873 6,663,128 1,007,255 17,8°/ 5.1- Water Resource Education 5.2 - Public Information 6,356,591 5,404,552 6,389,438 984,886 18.2% 5.3 - Public Relations 5.4 - Lobbying I Legislative Affairs I Cabinet Affairs 259,463 251,321 273,690 22,369 8.9% 5.5.Other Outreach Activities SLBTOTAL -Major Programs (excluding Management and Administradon) 521,261,630 1,407,516,358 948,364,963 (459,151,395) -32.6% 6.0 District Management and Administration 83,266,900 127,766,812 128,137,862 371,050 0,3% 6.1- Administrative and Operations Support 47,462,035 81,347,845 81,708,940 361,095 0.4% 6.1.1- Executive Direction 1,689,577 1,399,906 1,449,899 49,993 3.6% 6.1.2 - General Counsel I Legal 7,084,931 7,401,568 7,342,741 (58,827) -0.8% 6.1.3 - Inspector General 1,216,930 983,283 1,134,404 151,121 15.4% 6.1.4 - Administrative Support 25,978,173 60,727,704 61,228,820 501,116 0.8% 6.1.5 - Fleet Services 1,809,943 2,012,641 1,977,683 (34,958) -1.7% 6.1.6 - Procurement I Contract Administration 4,448,183 4,219,848 4,178,994 (40,854) -1.0% 6.1.7 - Human Resources 3,502,812 3,274,444 3,132,737 (141,707) -4.3% 6.1.8 - Communications 1,731,486 1,328,451 1,263,662 (64,789) -4.9% 6.1.9.Other 6.2 - Computers I Computer Support 29,913,331 28,547,122 28,739,288 192,166 0.7% 6.2.1- Executive Direction 2,668,589 2,271,056 2,276,146 5,090 0.2% 6.2.2 - Administrative SeNces 3,125,328 3,148,343 3,086,075 (62,268) -2.0% 6.2.3 - Application Development 17,254,233 17,458,695 17,259,690 (199,005) -1.1% 6.2.4 - Computer Operations 4,280,889 2,900,563 3,670,069 769,506 26.5% 6.2.5 - Network Support 2,584,292 2,768,465 2,447,308 (321,157) -11.6% 6.2.6 - Desk Top Support 6.2.7 - Asset Acquisition 6.2.8.Other 6.3 - Reserves 9,076,343 9,377,574 301,231 3.3% 6.4.Other (Tax Collector/ Property Appraiser Fees) 5,891,534 8,795,502 8,312,060 (483,442) -5.5% TOTAL 604,528,530 1,535,283,110 1,076,502,825 (458,780,345) •29.9% SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 40 t 7. 16] 1AI I Major Expenditure Budget Variances 1.0 Water Resources Planning and Monitoring The FY2011 proposed budget total for this state program is $73.7 million, which is $10 million or 12% less than the FY2010 current amended budget of $83.7 million. The majority of the decrease ($15.4 million or 55.6 %) is within the Other Water Resources Planning activity and is partly due to the reduction of state appropriated dollars for local initiatives as well as the reduction of District contribution to local initiative projects, reduction in ad valorem funding for research and monitoring contracts and local government projects, and partially offset by increased staff efforts on in -house projects. The St. Lucie River Watershed Protection Plan and Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plans were completed in January 2009, in accordance with the Northern Everglades and Estuary Protection Program (2007 SB 392). Resources and funding continue to shift towards the implementation and monitoring of restoration and water quality improvement projects in Lake Okeechobee, Caloosahatchee River, and St. Lucie River Watersheds. 2.0 Acquisition, Restoration and Public Works The total FY2011 proposed budget is $620.5 million, a decrease of $439.7 million or 41.5% less than the FY2010 current amended budget of Million. The significant decrease is primarily within the Surface Water Projects activity ($429.2 million). The decrease is mainly due to the reduction in fixed capital outlay ($667.6 million),as a result of the FY2010 budget including an estimated $536.5 million for the initial River of Grass land purchase. This decrease is offset with an FY2011 increase in reserves ($321 million) for land acquisition and capital projects. 3.0 Operation and Maintenance of Lands and Works The FY2011 proposed budget total for this state program is $218.3 million which is $13.9 million or 6% less than the FY2010 current amended budget of $232.2 million. The decrease is concentrated in the works ($8.1 million) and land management ($6.4 million) state activities, mainly within operating expenses for tree management, maintenance and repairs, and parts and supplies. The invasive plant control state activity had an increase of $1 million in operating capital outlay for fleet equipment. 4.0 Regulation The FY2011 proposed budget total for this state program is $29.2 million which is a $3.5 million or 13.7% increase from the FY2010 current amended budget of $25.7 million. The Other Regulatory and Enforcement activities reflect a $3 million or 42.2% increase above the FY2010 amended budget of $7.2 million. The increase is primarily due to the increased funding of the District's source control initiative to consider sub - regional projects to supplement BMPs and to expand the program to the river watersheds. 5.0 Outreach The FY2011 proposed budget total for this state program is $6.6 million which is a $1 million or 17.8% increase from the FY2010 current amended budget of $5.6 million. The increase is in the Public Information activity primarily due to the SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 41 1613 Al agency -wide realignment of staff to centralize and enhance public information. In addition, more funding was allocated for priority outreach activities and programs than in FY2010. 6.0 District Management and Administration The FY2011 proposed budget total for this state program is $128.1 million which is $0.3 million or 0.3% increase from the FY2010 current amended budget of $127.8 million. The majority of the increase is within administrative and operations support due to an increase in staff time allocated to these activities. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 42 1611 Al . IV. PROGRAM AND ACTIVITY ALLOCATIONS A. Program and Activity Definitions, Descriptions and Budget This section presents the District's budget by programs and activities defined by the Governor's Office. Each activity includes expenditure and budget summary, general description, changes and trends, major budget items and budget variances. The budget variance compares the FY2008 -2009 Amended Budget with the FY2009 -2010 Tentative Budget. ALL PROGRAMS Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 699, 995, 978 968,132, 718 AMENDED BUDGET CATEGORY 2009 -2010 Salaries and Benefits 187,977,408 Other Personal Services 63,942,157 Operating Expenses 149,802,921 Operating Capital Outlay 29,854,824 Fixed Capital Outlay 923,833,364 Interagency Expenditures 62,498,335 Debt 90,156,117 Reserves 27,218,044 Total Expenditures $1,535,283,170 06 -07 930, 400, 028 PROPOSED BUDGET 2010 -2011 191,310,099 59,584,381 137,576,138 17,441,168 263,611,393 22,082,488 44,116,973 340,780,185 $1,076,502,825 07 -08 08 -09 965,167, 811 604, 528, 530 DIFFERENCE IN $ % OF CHANGE 3,332,691 1.77% (4,357,776) -6.82% (12,226,783) -8.16% (12,413,656) - 41.58% (660,221,971) - 71.47% (40,415,847) - 64.67% (46,039,144) - 51.07% 313,562,141 1152.04% $(458,780,345) - 29.88% Personnel Category' Full -time Equivalents 1,842 1,842 0 0.00% Contract/Other - - - - Total Personnel 1,842 1,842 0 0.00% See the Program and Activity information that follows for details regarding the six program areas that comprises this budget. ' FTE Staffing levels rounded to the nearest whole number. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 43 Al f.0 Water Resources Planning and Monitoring Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 80, 591, 607 88, 903, 459 95, 969, 582 136, 328, 9604 88, 352,137 AMENDED PROPOSED BUDGET BUDGET CATEGORY 2009 -2010 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE IN $ % OF CHANGE Salaries and Benefits 35,737,080 36,254,886 517,806 1.45% Other Personal Services 11,092,406 9,566,722 (1,525,684) - 13.75% Operating Expenses 4,630,720 4,445,194 (185,526) - 4.01% Operating Capital Outlay 2,910,239 456,682 (2,453,557) -84.31% Fixed Capital Outlay 5,000,000 12,915,313 7,915,313 158.31% Interagency Expenditures 24,322,317 10,048,803 (14,273,514) - 58.68% Debt - - _ Reserves - - - Total Expenditures $ 83,692,762 $ 73,687,600 $ (10,005,162) - 11.95% Personnel Category2 Full -time Equivalents 357 353 (4) - 1.10% Contract/Other - - - 0.00% Total Personnel 357 353 (4) - 1.10% District Description This program includes all water management planning, including water supply planning, development of minimum flows and levels, and other water resources planning; research, data collection, analysis, and monitoring; and technical assistance (including local and regional plan and program review). 2 FTE Staffing levels rounded to the nearest whole number SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 44 i 4 i. 2009 -2010 Salaries and Benefits 4,056,209 Other Personal Services 1.1 District Water Management Operating Expenses 11 A I - Planning - Interagency Expenditures 531,000 Debt Total Expenditures (Actual) Reserves - 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 27,602,258 L 40,169, 605 41, 872, 068 82, 790, 254 34,547,685 AMENDED PROPOSED BUDGET BUDGET CATEGORY 2009 -2010 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE IN $ % OF CHANGE Salaries and Benefits 9,104,281 9,024,579 (79,702) - 0.88% Other Personal Services 2,581,603 1,374,315 (1,207,288) - 46.77% Operating Expenses 289,506 295,479 5,973 2.06% Operating Capital Outlay 144,000 10,000 (134,000) - 93.06% Fixed Capital Outlay - 1,106,000 1,106,000 - Interagency Expenditures 21,155,268 6,680,559 (14,474,709) - 68.42% Debt _ _ Reserves _ Total Expenditures $ 33,274,658 $ 18,490,932 $ (14,783,726) - 44.43% See subcategories below. 1.1.1 Water Supply Planning Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 8,204,325 7,949,963 AMENDED BUDGET CATEGORY 2009 -2010 Salaries and Benefits 4,056,209 Other Personal Services 25,000 Operating Expenses 35,078 Operating Capital Outlay - Fixed Capital Outlay - Interagency Expenditures 531,000 Debt - Reserves - Total Expenditures $ 4,647,287 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 8,657,534 7,924,258 6,019,473 PROPOSED BUDGET 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE IN $ % OF CHANGE 4,079,738 23,529 0.58% 389,800 364,800 1459.20% 84,009 48,931 139.49% 1,160,032 629,032 118.46% $ 5,713,579 $ 1,066,292 22.94% District Description: Four planning areas, which together encompass the entire District, address the unique resources and needs of each region. Regional water supply plans have been prepared and approved by the Governing Board for these areas. The plans project water demands over a 20 -year planning horizon, and identify recommended sources and projects to satisfy those demands. Implementation of recommendations is essential to ensuring that sufficient quantities of water will be available. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 45 Th v 1611 A i q e plans identify a series of water source options for each of the areas of concern in the regions. The options are as prescribed by Section 373.0361(2), Florida Statutes (F.S.), water supply options and include traditional and alternative water supply (AWS), as well as conservation and reuse projects to meet the future urban, agricultural and natural systems needs of each region. The District is implementing its updated regional water supply plans which were approved by the Governing Board between July 2006 and February 2007. The plans are updated every five years to maintain a 20 -year planning horizon. Updates to these regional plans are underway with two plan updates scheduled to be completed in FY2011 and two in FY2012. Water supply plans are required to identify specific water resource and water supply development projects to meet future demands. Alternative water supply projects, including those identified in the plans, are eligible for funding assistance from the state and District. Local governments are required to adopt water supply facilities work plans and incorporate them into their comprehensive plans within 18 months of the respective regional water supply plan update being approved. The work plans are then reviewed for their consistency with the water supply plans. All proposed comprehensiv Ian amendments are reviewed to ensure that there is sufficient water for the pro amendment as well as all the local government's other demands. Changes and Trends: Updates to the water supply plans were initiated in FY2010. In addition, aquifer tests were conducted on select wells in the Kissimmee Basin to fill data gaps, evapotranspiration (ET) data was collected and analyzed from 5 ground cover types to facilitate a better understanding of ET for planning and modeling purposes. Continued monitoring of groundwater levels from the USGS groundwater monitoring network supported water shortage management activities. A Lower Floridan Aquifer well in southeast Polk County and subsequent testing of the well for Alternative Water Supply (AWS) evaluation was completed. Water quality sampling and analysis for baseline data of the Floridan Aquifer System to establish changes or trends in the data were completed. Model recalibration and verification of the East Central Florida Transient Model to allow for estimation of the safe yield of the Floridan Aquifer System in the Central Florida Coordination Area (CFCA) is underway. The CFCA facilitation activities continue to move ahead. Major Budget Items: CFCA facilitation / STOPR agreement ($525,000), Floridan well maintenance ($253,968); wellhead / field equipment repairs and geophysical logging ($110,000); continued monitoring of groundwater levels to evaluate long -term trends ($465,864); and technical editors for water supply plan updates ($270,000). Budget Variances: An increase of $1.07 million from FY2010 to FY2011 occurred primarily due to the realignment of funding from Implementation to Planning for the CFCA / STOPR agreement funding ($500,000), as well as additional funding for Floridan well maintenance ($253,968) and technical editors for the regional water supply plan updates ($270,000). SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 46 1.1.2 Minimum Flows and Levels 04 -05 344,357 CATEGORY Salaries and Benefits Other Personal Services Operating Expenses Operating Capital Outlay Fixed Capital Outlay Interagency Expenditures Debt Reserves Total Expenditures 1611 "AL I Total Expenditures (Actual) 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 774,997 873,098 841,428 976,902 AMENDED PROPOSED BUDGET BUDGET 2009 -2010 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE IN $ 697,650 337,901 (359,749) 150,000 105,000 (45,000) 2,725 2,910 185 28,617 - (28,617) $ 878,992 $ 445,811 $ (433,181) % OF CHANGE - 51.57% - 30.00% 6.79% - 100.00% - 49.28% District Description: Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs) are intended to provide a tool for both planning and allocation of water by specifying the extent and limits of the availability of the state's surface water and groundwater. MFLs are the levels in lakes, wetlands and aquifers, and the flows and levels in rivers, streams, or into estuaries, beyond which withdrawals of water will be significantly harmful to the water resources of the area. For water bodies that do not currently meet the MFL criteria, each water management district must develop a "Recovery Plan," which outlines a plan to achieve the MFL in the future. A "Prevention Plan" must be developed if it is expected that a MFL may not be met in the future. In 2001, MFL rules were established for Lake Okeechobee (730 sq. miles), Everglades National Park (2,150 sq. miles), Water Conservation Area 1 (221 sq. miles), Water Conservation Area 2 (210 sq. miles), Water Conservation Area 3A (786 sq. miles), and Water Conservation Area 313 (128 sq. miles) — a total of six (6) surface water bodies having a total surface area of 4,225 square miles. Also in 2001, MFL rules were established for the Biscayne Aquifer in the Lower East Coast and the Lower West Coast Aquifer. In 2002, one MFL rule was established for the St. Lucie River Estuary in the Upper East Coast. In 2003, MFL rules were established for the St. Lucie River Estuary in the Upper East Coast and the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River in the Lower East Coast/Upper East Coast. In 2006, one MFL rule was established for Lake Istokpoga. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 47 In 2007, one MFL rule was established for Florida Bay. 1611 Al 0 In 2008, no MFL rule was established; however a peer review of the available science to support rule development for Biscayne Bay was completed. The District is presently addressing shortcomings identified in the review prior to proceeding with rulemaking. Changes and Trends: Adoption of the Regional Water Availability Rule achieved the purpose and intent of the Loxahatchee tributaries MFL, the Loxahatchee River Initial Water Reservation, and the Everglades Initial Water Reservation by limiting further consumptive use and thus preserving existing water for fish and wildlife. Peer reviews were completed for three project areas; Kissimmee River and Chain of Lakes, St. Lucie River, and Biscayne Bay, rule development was initiated for the Kissimmee and St. Lucie project areas. Moving forward with the Biscayne Bay MFL was delayed to allow sufficient time to assemble all available information in support of MFLs for the entire bay system, rather than focus on one sub - system at a time. The Central Florida Coordinating Area (CFCA) project established standard protocols and the first wetland database across the 3 Water Management Districts. The database will provide the basis for assessing Regulatory criteria in the upper basin. Major Budget Items: The FY2011 budget includes water reservation and SERC (Statement of Estimated Regulatory Cost) for the Kissimmee River Restoration ($105,000). Budget Variances: There has been a decrease of $0.4 million between FY2010 and FY2011 due to staff time reductions in these activities ($359,749) and not funding the Central Florida wetlands baseline conditions analysis. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 48 3 Al 1.1.3 Other Water Resources Planning 1611 , Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 19,053,576 31,444,645 32,341,437 74,024,568 27,551,310 AMENDED PROPOSED BUDGET BUDGET CATEGORY 2009 -2010 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE IN $ % OF CHANGE Salaries and Benefits 4,350,422 4,606,940 256,518 5.90% Other Personal Services 2,406,603 879,515 (1,527,088) - 63.45% Operating Expenses 251,703 208,560 (43,143) - 17.14% Operating Capital Outlay 144,000 10,000 (134,000) - 93.06% Fixed Capital Outlay - 1,106,000 1,106,000 - Interagency Expenditures 20,595,651 5,520,527 (15,075,124) - 73.20% Debt - - Reserves Total Expenditures $ 27,748,379 $ 12,331,542 $ (15,416,837) - 55.56% District Description: This activity includes a variety of water resource planning efforts such as the Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan, South Miami -Dade Water Management Plan, Naples Bay SWIM Plan, the south Lee County Watershed Plan, and the Estero Bay watershed management strategies. Planning efforts also include implementation of State Appropriation supported flood mitigation, stormwater improvement, restoration, and water quality projects. Other projects include the implementation of the existing SWIM plan for Naples Bay; and implementation and update of the Restoration Plan for the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River and implementation of the St. Lucie River and Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plans. Changes and Trends: The St. Lucie River Watershed Protection Plan and Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plans were completed in January 2009, in accordance with the Northern Everglades and Estuary Protection Program (2007 SB 392). Resources and funding continue to shift towards the implementation and monitoring of restoration and water quality improvement projects in Lake Okeechobee, Caloosahatchee River, and St. Lucie River Watersheds (See Section 2.3). Reduced availability of ad valorem and state appropriated funding due to the current economic conditions resulted in reduced research and monitoring contracts and increased staff efforts to in -house projects, as well as the reduction of District contribution to local initiative projects. Major Budget Items: Research and monitoring in support of St. Lucie River Watershed Protection Plan and Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection plan implementation ($283K). Research, studies, and modeling in support of updates to the Northwest Fork of Loxahatchee River Restoration Plan ($128K); assessment of trends of Florida Bay and development of Florida Bay biological and ecosystem models for MFL updates ($512K); as well as work in cooperation with Southwest Florida Water Management District on the development of flood mapping activity statements for Highlands and Polk Counties ($87K). SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 49 Q R. ' 'Major items 4Iso implementation of local include im p flood mitJ6, relration, stormwater improvement, and water quality projects. This budget includes $870K in prior year state appropriated funds for local initiatives ($665K Loxahatchee River Preservation Initiative and $205K for surface water improvements in District designated priority water bodies). Other efforts include $4 million in research, monitoring, modeling and water quality improvement projects in the Big Cypress Basin /Naples Bay; $300K for stormwater improvement projects and $330K for Indian River Lagoon license plate grant awards. Budget Variances: The decrease of $15.4 million from FY2010 to FY2011 is due to the reduction of state appropriated dollars for local initiatives, reduction in ad valorem funding for research and monitoring contracts and local government projects, and increased staff efforts on in -house projects. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 50 Al1.�' Research, Data Collection, Analysis and Monitoring 1611 Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 52, 781, 284 48, 519, 392 53, 866, 952 52, 819, 368 53,158, 369 AMENDED PROPOSED BUDGET BUDGET CATEGORY 2009 -2010 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE IN $ % OF CHANGE Salaries and Benefits 25,893,282 26,643,619 750,337 2.90% Other Personal Services 8,510,803 8,192,407 (318,396) -3.74% Operating Expenses 4,341,214 4,149,715 (191,499) -4.41% Operating Capital Outlay 2,766,239 446,682 (2,319,557) - 83.85% Fixed Capital Outlay 5,000,000 11,809,313 6,809,313 136.19% Interagency Expenditures 3,167,049 3,368,244 201,195 6.35% Debt Reserves Total Expenditures $ 49,678,587 $ 54,609,980 $ 4,931,393 9.93% District Description: This program includes research, modeling, environmental monitoring and assessment activities that support permit compliance and multiple District programs, including the Everglades, Long -Term Plan for Achieving Water Quality Goals in the Everglades Protection Area, Everglades Stormwater Program, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program ( NEEPP), and coastal ecosystems. Program - related activities include laboratory analysis; water quality and water quantity monitoring; hydrogeologic drilling and monitoring; quality assurance /quality control; data management; hydrologic modeling; water quality and ecological modeling; remote sensing; Geographic Information System development; research (field and laboratory); Best Management Practices (BMP) technologies; pollutant load reduction goals development; and data collection, analysis, reporting, and publication. The 2003 amended Everglades Forever Act (EFA) requires the District to implement the Long -Term Plan for Achieving Water Quality Goals in the Everglades Protection Area (Long -Term Plan). The Long -Term Plan contains a suite of projects, ranging from STA structural enhancements, STA expansions, STA optimization research, STA compliance and operational monitoring (hydraulic and water quality), STA downstream monitoring and research, STA water quality and hydrodynamic modeling, and BMP /source controls programs. The Lake Okeechobee Protection Act (SEC373.4595, Florida Statutes) established a restoration and protection program for the lake (Lake Okeechobee Watershed Protection Program). This program identifies alternative plans, schedules and costs to meet the total phosphorus TMDL of 140 metric tons by the year 2015, as specified in the Act. The 2007 Florida Legislative session passed SB 392 which expands the Lake Okeechobee Protection Act to also include protection of the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie River Watersheds, which is now known as the NEEPP. NEEPP requires development of a Technical Plan for Phase II of the Lake Okeechobee Construction Project, which identifies projects to achieve Lake Okeechobee Total Maximum Daily SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 51 Loads TMD ' 1 Al ( L), develop storage goals to achieve desired ran e o water I I 9 a e Okeechob eve s and inflow volumes to the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie Estuaries, and implement additional source controls. The Phase II Technical Plan was submitted to the Legislature on Feb 1, 2008 and is currently being implemented. The NEEPP includes two new River Watershed Protection Programs for the Caloosahatchee and the St. Lucie River Watersheds. The River Watershed Protection Plans were submitted to the Legislature on January 1, 2009 and are currently being implemented. The three coordinating agencies, the South Florida Water Management District, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services are charged with carrying out the NEEPP. Currently the Coordinating Agencies are working on the Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan update which will be completed and submitted to the Legislature in early 2011. Central and South Florida monitoring and assessment is the performance of field measurements, data collection, and instrument maintenance used to monitor flow conditions in support of Flood Control. This is perfor d at all C &SF mandated sites and structures in the SFWMD region. Changes and Trends: Continuing efforts include monitoring to determine progress toward meeting Lake Okeechobee phosphorus loading targets; the new phosphorus criterion for the Everglades as well as levels and limits set by the Everglades Settlement Agreement. Monitoring to meet the annual reporting requirements of the Lake Okeechobee Operating Permit is now in place. Other monitoring activities include in -lake ecological monitoring; the new features constructed under EFA and the Long -Term Plan, assessment of downstream effects of the STAs; assessment of the hydrologic needs of the Everglades, as mandated by the EFA; as well as monitoring support for CERP projects. Major Budget Items: • Major budget items include water quality monitoring in the Everglades Protection Area, Lake Okeechobee and its watershed, and South Florida coastal watersheds, including Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay, St. Lucie River and Estuary, Estero Bay, and Caloosahatchee River and Estuary ($1.7 million) and analyses ($633,903).; construction costs for the new laboratory facility ($7.8 million). • Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring Recover contracts and support ($2.3 million). • Regional Modeling efforts include monitoring compliance with processes and modeling standards; maintaining, enhancing, and applying regional and sub - regional models for water quality, water supply, emergency operations, operations planning, flood event, climate change and sea level rise; and enhancing Graphical User Interface pre- and post- processing tools ($1.3 million). Lake Okeechobee Watershed Protection Plan includes in -lake assessment projects ($168,920) and water quality assessment and reporting ($38,336). • Major projects for the District Everglades Program include: SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 52 ex 16 11 o STA Analysis & Interpretation: optimization support, soil characterization, adaptive management studies, field sampling reports, performance analyses, mesocosm studies and lab and engineering support ($1.9 million). o Everglades Construction Program Operations Monitoring: Streamgauging for the Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs), flow measurement anomalies, quality assurance /quality control of hydrologic data for the STAs ($1.4 million). o Scientific Project Support: GIS Web and database support, project support business services support ($475,639), including Loxahatchee Impoundment Landscape Assessment (LILA) ($256K) and Fire Project ($72K). • Ongoing C &SF project monitoring and assessment, including maintenance required to keep telemetry system running and send feedback to District headquarters ($2.79 million). Budget Variances: The net increase of $4.9 million is primarily due to capital construction costs and capital equipment for the new Environmental Services Laboratory. The new laboratory facility is necessary to replace the current rental buildings that are structurally substandard and vulnerable to severe hurricane damage. The primary facilities have 16 years of service and major systems are at the end of their life cycle. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 53 1 i f 1 6 01' A I 1.3 Technical Assistance Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 208,065 214,462 230,563 719,338 646,083 AMENDED PROPOSED CATEGORY BUDGET 2009 -2010 BUDGET 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE IN $ % OF CHANGE Salaries and Benefits 739,517 586,688 (152,82b) - 20.67% Other Personal Services _ Operating Expenses _ _ Operating Capital Outlay - Fixed Capital Outlay _ Interagency Expenditures _ Debt - Reserves - Total Expenditures $ 739,517 $ 586,688 $ (152,829) - 20.67% District Description: The District provides technical assistance to local governments on their local comprehensive plans and related documents. This technical assistance is provided through several means: • Provide technical support to local government planners and officials. Coordinate assistance between local governments and SFWMD regarding 10 -year water supply facility work plans and information needed for the District's four regional water supply plans. • Review and comment on water resource issues for local government proposed comprehensive plan amendments, Evaluation and Appraisal Reports. • Conduct SFWMD technical assistance workshops with local governments throughout the District. • Provide assistance to local governments by maintaining web pages that provide information needed for 10 -year water supply facility work plans. Changes and Trends: As legislation has changed, and as the District begins the update to the regional water supply plans, this activity continues to be important to help local governments implement recent legislative requirements that integrate water supply planning and local comprehensive planning. Additionally, the population changes over the past several years require many local governments to revise projections. Major Budget Items: FY2011 resources consist of on -going personnel service costs for existing technical assistance staff. Budget Variances: The decrease of $152,829 from the FY2010 to FY2011 is due to less staff time budgeted to comprehensive planning and technical support of local plans. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 54 Personnel Cate o s Full -time Equivalents 172 167 (5) - 3. 0.000% 0% Contract/Other 167 (5) - 3.16% Total Personnel 172 This program includes the development and construction of all capital projects (except for those contained in Program 3.0), including water resource development projects /water supply development assistance, water control projects, and support and administrative facilities construction; cooperative projects; land acquisition (including Save Our Rivers /Preservation 2000 /Florida Forever); and the restoration of lands and water bodies. 3 FTE Staffing levels rounded to the nearest whole number SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 55 log 1611 Al 17 2 0 Acquisition, Restoration, and Public Works Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 376, 607, 615 596, 285, 953 536, 978, 983 490, 947, 799 234, 883, 780 AMENDED PROPOSED BUDGET 2009 -2010 BUDGET 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE IN $ % OF CHANGE CATEGORY Salaries and Benefits 18,929,740 18,842,507 (87,233) (667,225) - 0.46% - 4.68% Other Personal Services 14,271,992 13,604,767 5,177,412 (3,843,517) -42.61% Operating Expenses 9,020,929 23,648,696 6,418,613 (17,230,083) - 72.86% Operating Capital Outlay Fixed Capital Outlay 877,526,668 209,235,839 (668,290,829) 668,290,829 - 76.16% 69.27% Interagency Expenditures 35,846,368 11,014,788 35,244,177 24,831,580 (372) ) - 56.49% ( 45,750, - Debt 80,994,549 6,897 321,000,000 320,993,103 4654097.48% Reserves Total Expenditures $ 1,060,245,839 $ 620,538,103 $ ( 439, 707, 736 ) - 41.47% Personnel Cate o s Full -time Equivalents 172 167 (5) - 3. 0.000% 0% Contract/Other 167 (5) - 3.16% Total Personnel 172 This program includes the development and construction of all capital projects (except for those contained in Program 3.0), including water resource development projects /water supply development assistance, water control projects, and support and administrative facilities construction; cooperative projects; land acquisition (including Save Our Rivers /Preservation 2000 /Florida Forever); and the restoration of lands and water bodies. 3 FTE Staffing levels rounded to the nearest whole number SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 55 log f 1 2.2 Water Resource Development Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 8,933,236 45, 351, 042 48, 070, 912 43, 444, 464 CATEGORY Salaries and Benefits Other Personal Services Operating Expenses Operating Capital Outlay Fixed Capital Outlay Interagency Expenditures Debt Reserves Total Expenditures AMENDED BUDGET 2009 -2010 919,163 500,000 7,950 12,592,350 6,897 $ 14,026,360 See sub - categories below. PROPOSED BUDGET 2010 -2011 882,504 33,500 1,175 4,495,550 $ 5,412,729 2.2.1 Water Resource Development Projects 1611 08 -09 20, 633, 618 DIFFERENCE IN $ (36,659) (466,500) (6,775) (8,096,800) (6,897) $ (8,613,631) Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 5,956,388 3,920,523 10, 219, 924 8, 015, 966 CATEGORY Salaries and Benefits Other Personal Services Operating Expenses Operating Capital Outlay Fixed Capital Outlay Interagency Expenditures Debt Reserves Total Expenditures AMENDED BUDGET 2009 -2010 757,805 500,000 6,650 $ 1,264,455 PROPOSED BUDGET 2010 -2011 688,322 33,500 1,175 $ 722,997 08 -09 1,571, 739 DIFFERENCE IN $ (69,483) (466,500) (5,475) $ (541,458) Al % OF CHANGE -3.99% - 93.30% - 85.22% - 64.30% - 100.00% -61.41% % OF CHANGE -9.17% - 93.30% - 82.33% - 42.82% District Description: Regional water supply plans have been prepared and approved by the Governing Board for the four planning regions that cumulatively cover the entire District. These plans project water demands over at least a 20 -year planning horizon and recommend the water resource development projects to satisfy those demands. Changes and Trends: Water Resource development projects support water supply implementation based on Governing Board strategic direction. In FY2009 and FY2010 projects have been in the Central Florida Coordination Area. In FY2011 no implementation projects are budgeted. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 56 ti r 1611 Al tb: Major Budget Items: In FY2011 staff time is budgeted to be expended developing recommendations and information for proposed projects to be included the related tto supply plans being updated and providing support to local governments implementation issues. Budget Variances: The proposed FY2011 budget resulted in a net reduction of $0.5 million compared to FY2010. The reduction was caused by the realignment of the STOPR agreement and associated staff time into Section 1.1.1 due to the nature of the agreement being more planning than implementation. Page 57 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission 2.2.2 Water Supply Development Assistance 04 -05 2,976,848 CATEGORY Salaries and Benefits Other Personal Services Operating Expenses Operating Capital Outlay Fixed Capital Outlay Interagency Expenditures Debt Reserves Total Expenditures 16 1111 q Total Expenditures (Actual) 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 41, 430, 519 37, 850, 989 35, 428, 497 19, 061, 879 AMENDED PROPOSED BUDGET BUDGET 2009 -2010 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE IN $ 161,358 194,182 32,824 1,300 - (1,300) 12,592,350 4,495,550 (8,096,800) 6,897 (6,897) $ 12,761,905 $ 4,689,732 $ (8,072,173) % OF CHANGE 20.34% - 100.00% - 64.30% - 100.00% - 63.25% District Description: Local governments, water users, and water utilities are primarily responsible for implementing water supply development. The Water Protection and Sustainability Program was created during the 2005 Florida legislative session. The legislation strengthens the link between water supply plans and local government comprehensive plans. The Water Protection and Sustainability Program provided state cost - sharing funds, which are matched by the water management district, for alternative water supply development. In addition, the legislation included requirements for the water supply development component of the regional water supply plans by making the plans more specific. The intent is to make the plans more useful to local water suppliers in developing alternative water supplies, and then provide permitting and funding incentives to local water suppliers to build projects included in the plan. Changes and Trends: In 1986 the District began a program to cost share water supply development projects, primarily with local governments and other entities. Since the program began, the level of funding and the types of projects funded have varied from year to year. Major Budget Items: The FY2011 budget includes: Big Cypress Basin AWS projects ($2.6 million), Miami -Dade AWS projects ($1 million), District AWS projects ($450K), North Miami AWS project ($250K) and prior year District ad valorem match ($195,550). Budget Variances: A reduction of $8.1 million from FY2010 to FY2011 is primarily due to less dollars being available for alternative water supply projects. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 58 61 , 2.3 Surface Water Projects Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 353, 885,172 545, 507, 583 482, 276, 709 443, 429, 714 210, 751, 308 % OF CHANGE -0.94% 11.73% - 42.82% -74.51% - 76.14% -73.51% - 56.49% - 41.17% District Description: Southern Surface Water Projects include the Kissimmee Basin Restoration, the NEEPP, the Everglades /Florida Bay Restoration, the Everglades Stormwater Program, Everglades Forever Act (EFA) projects, Critical Restoration Projects, and the CERP. The EFA and CERP surface water projects are unique to the South Florida Water Management District. As such, separate narratives and programmatic spreadsheets for each of these projects are provided in the section titled "District Specific Programs and Activities ". The Kissimmee Watershed program consists of land acquisition, mitigation in lieu of acquisition, planning, restoration, evaluation, and basin water resources projects. The river restoration efforts represent the South Florida Water Management District's responsibilities as local sponsor for the federally authorized Kissimmee River Restoration Project. As of April 2006, over 98% of all land acquisition required for Kissimmee River Restoration was acquired. This was a major milestone considering that over 102,000 acres were acquired to be acquired by the end of FY201i�simmee Watershed. A total of 2,240 acres remains The Kissimmee River Restoration program continues to quantify the success of efforts undertaken to date and provides input for adaptive management. Water management operations within the basin control theto waters Lake flowing from Chain Basin Lakes through the Kissimmee River modeling and operations study is developing a basin -wide operations model and associated performance measures that will evaluate and integrate alternative regulations to preserve and /or enhance the ecological values of the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes, to meet the goals of Kissimmee River Restoration, and to minimize impacts to downstream ecosystems (e.g., Lake Okeechobee). Page 59 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission AMENDED PROPOSED BUDGET 2009 -2010 BUDGET 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE CATEGORY Salaries and Benefits 17,193,077 17,031,842 235) 1,424,275 Other Personal Services 12,146,992 8,711,253 13,571,267 4,gg0,847 (3,730,406) Operating Expenses Operating Capital Outlay 23,648,696 6,028,613 (17,620,083) (667,565,029) Fixed Capital Outlay 876,800,868 209,235,839 6,039,238 (16,759,780) Interagency Expenditures 22,799,018 80,994,549 35,244,177 (45,750,372) Debt - 321,000,000 321,000,000 Reserves Total Expenditures 0 $ 1,042,294,453 $ 613,131,823 $ 429,162,630 % OF CHANGE -0.94% 11.73% - 42.82% -74.51% - 76.14% -73.51% - 56.49% - 41.17% District Description: Southern Surface Water Projects include the Kissimmee Basin Restoration, the NEEPP, the Everglades /Florida Bay Restoration, the Everglades Stormwater Program, Everglades Forever Act (EFA) projects, Critical Restoration Projects, and the CERP. The EFA and CERP surface water projects are unique to the South Florida Water Management District. As such, separate narratives and programmatic spreadsheets for each of these projects are provided in the section titled "District Specific Programs and Activities ". The Kissimmee Watershed program consists of land acquisition, mitigation in lieu of acquisition, planning, restoration, evaluation, and basin water resources projects. The river restoration efforts represent the South Florida Water Management District's responsibilities as local sponsor for the federally authorized Kissimmee River Restoration Project. As of April 2006, over 98% of all land acquisition required for Kissimmee River Restoration was acquired. This was a major milestone considering that over 102,000 acres were acquired to be acquired by the end of FY201i�simmee Watershed. A total of 2,240 acres remains The Kissimmee River Restoration program continues to quantify the success of efforts undertaken to date and provides input for adaptive management. Water management operations within the basin control theto waters Lake flowing from Chain Basin Lakes through the Kissimmee River modeling and operations study is developing a basin -wide operations model and associated performance measures that will evaluate and integrate alternative regulations to preserve and /or enhance the ecological values of the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes, to meet the goals of Kissimmee River Restoration, and to minimize impacts to downstream ecosystems (e.g., Lake Okeechobee). Page 59 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission d. A The Kissimmee Basin Water Reservation Rulemakin roI6sIo 11 identify ater i g p n.lgoing an will fy n the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes and the Kissimmee River and floodplain that is required for the protection of fish and wildlife. Technical criteria used to determine water necessary for fish and wildlife protection has been successfully reviewed by an independent panel of scientific experts in the fields of lake and river ecology, hydrology, and modeling. Activities associated with Lake Okeechobee, include implementation of the Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan and implementation of the Technical Plan for Phase II of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project. Specific activities include: development of sub - watershed feasibility studies; implementation of pilot demonstration projects of new technologies for the improvement of water quality; evaluation of regulatory source control programs in support of NEEPP; continuation of partnerships with agriculture and urban communities to implement Best Management Practices; and implementation of a variety of source control, restoration and storage projects. Additionally, completed implementation of best available technologies for reduction of phosphorus in existing and former dairies, former dairy remediation projects and cow /calf BMP optimization; completed design and construction of eight Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Pilot projects and started construction of Lakeside Ranch Stormwater Treatment Area -North. The St. Lucie River Watershed Protection Plan and the Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan were completed in January 2009 and are now in the implementation phase. The plans address pollutant load reductions based upon adopted total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), and include a goal for salinity envelopes and freshwater inflow targets. Both plans include: a. Construction Projects - planning, design, and construction of the initial phase to improve the hydrology, water quality and aquatic habitats within the watersheds; b. Watershed Pollutant Control Programs — a multi- faceted approach to reducing pollutant loads by improving management of pollutant sources within the watershed by implementing regulations and best management practices (BMPs), developing and implementing improved BMPs, improving and restoring hydrologic function of natural and managed systems, and utilization of alternative technologies for pollutant reduction; and c. Watershed Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program to keep track of progress achieving the River Watershed Protection Plans' goals. Changes and Trends: The FY2011 Kissimmee Watershed budget reflects a decrease in land acquisition activities, since progress was made in FY2010 to acquire a significant portion of outstanding project lands. Remaining required lands are to be purchased and certified in FY2011, prior to planned USACE construction in early FY2012. Additionally, monitoring efforts for the Kissimmee River restoration will increase to finalize establishment of the baseline environmental condition in the final construction phase area. Lastly, funding for Rolling Meadows Wetland Restoration increases significantly in FY2011 as the project shifts in focus from the preliminary analysis phase to the design phase, with restoration construction scheduled to begin in FY2012. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 60 t 1611 ' A 9• 7 The general guidelines used in developing Lake Okeechobee activities were predicated on the requirements associated with Okeechoee Protection )r the TMDL for expanded to the Northern Everglad es and Lake Okeechobee, strategic priorities set by the District Governing Board; and issues identified in CERP. The 2007 Florida Legislative session passed SB 392 which expands the Lake Okeechobee Protection Act to also include protection of the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie River Watersheds, which is now known as the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program. It requires development of a Technical Plan for Phase II of the Lake Okeechobee Construction Project to identify projects to achieve Lake Okeechobee Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL), develop storage goals to achieve desired range of Lake Okeechobee water levels and inflow volumes to the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie Estuaries, and implement additional source controls. The Phase II Technical Plan was submitted to the Legislature on Feb 1, 2008 and is currently being implemented The Phase II Technical Plan identifies construction projects, along with agricultural and urban practices, needed to achieve the Lake Okeechobee TMDL. In addition, it includes other projects for increasing water storage north of Lake Okeechobee to achieve healthier lake levels and reduce harmful discharges to the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries. The Technical Plan includes short-term measures for implementation during the first three years of the plan and longer -term measures that will be put into operation post -2010. The Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan and Technical Plan together represent the best blueprint for achieving water quality standards while better managing lake levels. Three coordinating agencies, the South Florida Water Management District, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services are charged with carrying out includes orthern River rWatershed Estuaries Protection Program (NEEPP) The NEEPP Protection Programs for the Caloosahatchee and the St. Lucie River Watersheds. The River Watershed protection Plans were submitted to the Legislature on January 1, 2009 and are currently being implemented• protection program includes watershed protection plan, a watershed construction project, a watershed pollutant control program, and a watershed research and water quality monitoring program. Efforts towards the implementation of the St. Lucie River Watershed Protection Plan and Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan will continue in FY2011 in accordance with the Northern Everglades and Estuary Protection Program. Construction of three water quality improvement projects were started under the Northern Everglades local cost share projects with Martin County and will continue in 2011; construction of the C -43 Water Quality Treatment and Testing Facility in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed is deferred pending additional research into nitrogen reducing technologies which will assist in the design of the Test Cells on the site. River Watershed protection Plan updates will be initiated in 2011 and will be completed and submitted to the Legislature in early 2012. Changes and trends for the EFA and CERP projects are provided in the section titled "District Specific Programs and Activities ". SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 61 16'I 1 A 1 Mayor Budget ge items: FY2011 resources are proposed to continue restoration and flood mitigation projects. Major projects include: • Kissimmee River Restoration and Headwaters Revitalization: Restoration Evaluation ($1.3 million); Hydrologic Monitoring ($396K); Kissimmee River Restoration land acquisition ($6.5 million). • Kissimmee Watershed Projects: Kissimmee Chain of Lakes and Upper Basin Monitoring & Assessment ($385K),Three Lakes Wildlife Management Area hydrologic restoration ($282K); Rolling Meadows Wetland Restoration ($1.3 million). • Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan Construction projects include Lakeside Ranch Stormwater Treatment Area ($15 million) and Lemkin Creek Stormwater Project ($800K). • Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule Operations Planning projects include Herbert Hoover Dike Rehabilitation ($1.9 million). • Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan projects include in -lake navigation /recreation enhancements ($1 million), watershed phosphorus reduction ($237K), isolated wetland restoration ($33K), regional phosphorus control projects ($66K), and Phase II Technical Plan ($152K). • Lake Okeechobee Watershed Protection Program dispersed water management and treatment (formerly known as alternative storage and /or disposal options) ($3 million). • Research and monitoring in support of St. Lucie River Watershed Protection Plan and Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection plan implementation ($4.4 million), local initiatives for Biscayne Bay ($600K). (Project detail for District Everglades and CERP are shown under District Specific Programs and Activities at the end of this section). Budget Variances: Decreases of $17.4 million in the Kissimmee Watershed budget reflect decreased land acquisition activities, due to significant progress made in acquiring remaining project lands. The focus of these activities in FY2011 is to ensure all project lands are purchased and certified prior to planned USACE construction and Implementation of the Headwaters Revitalization and increased environmental monitoring in the Phase II /III area. There is a decrease of $29.3 million in the Lake Okeechobee FY2011 budget compared to FY2010 due to reduction of State Appropriations. (Budget variance for District Everglades and CERP are shown under District Specific Programs and Activities at the end of this section). SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 62 p e; 2:4 Other Cooperative Projects 04 -05 1,668,574 CATEGORY Salaries and Benefits Other Personal Services Operating Expenses Operating Capital Outlay Fixed Capital Outlay Interagency Expenditures Debt Reserves Total Expenditures 1611 Al Total Expenditures (Actual) 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 1,711,866 2,148, 696 1,991,863 2,819,597 AMENDED PROPOSED BUDGET 2009 -2010 BUDGET 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE IN $ % OF CHANGE 817,500 928,161 110,661 13.54% 25,000 - (25,000) - 100.00% 101,726 35,390 (66,336) -65.21% 455,000 480,000 25,000 5.49% $ 1,399,226 $ 1,443,551 $ 44,325 3.17% District Description: This program includes non -water source development cooperative effort between a water management district and other organizations. This does not include a project resulting in a capital facility that is owned or operated by the water management district. In FY2010, the District provided water conservation contracts to 13 projects through the District's Water Savings Incentive Program (WaterSIP). This incentive program helps water users apply technological innovations that will yield long -term conservation water savings. This program is awarded to public or private water users /providers and help fund conservation projects related to a regional water supply plan implementation. This program also includes a mobile irrigation lab in Big Cypress Basin that provides water conservation information and irrigation system evaluations to increase design and operating efficiency of urban irrigation systems. Changes and Trends: Funding level for the Water Conservation Savings Incentive Program and other water conservation activities have been considerably reduced due to the decrease in available resources. The Big Cypress Basin funding level remains the same for the Mobile Irrigation Lab. Major Budget Items: The Water Savings Incentive Program ($300,000); the Florida Automated Weather Network ($100,OOStBd $25 000) and the Florida irrigation labs Coast ($55,000); the Orange County Conservation y University (FGCU) Wings of Hope program ($20,000). Budget Variances: The increase from FY2010 to FY2011 is due to additional staff time being allocated to support water conservation activities. Page 63 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission �t 2.5 Facilities Construction and Major Renovations 16 i I��1 A 1 Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 12,120, 633 3,715,462 4,482,666 2,081,758 679,257 AMENDED PROPOSED BUDGET BUDGET CATEGORY Salaries and Benefits 2009 -2010 _ 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE IN $ % OF CHANGE Other Personal Services 1,600,000 - (1,600,000) - 100.00% Operating Expenses 200,000 160,000 (40,000) - 20.00% Operating Capital Outlay - 390,000 390,000 Fixed Capital Outlay 725,800 - 100.00% Interagency Expenditures _ = 4,5,800) Debt Reserves _ _ - Total Expenditures $ 2,525,800 $ 550,000 $ (1,975,800) - 78.22% District Description: The proposed work for the facilities improvement program includes project management, permitting, and conceptual, preliminary, and detailed engineering for the development and preparation of contract plans and specifications for the construction of planned replacement, improvement, or repair to the District's administrative facilities. Changes and Trends: The effort for facilities capital improvements is ongoing. Due to the aging of the B -1 Headquarters Building, built in 1989, a continuation in renovations and upgrades will occur in the years to come. Major Budget Items: For FY2011, the District plans to complete replacing the Headquarters B -1 building third floor atrium roof ($160,000), and replace aging air conditioning units in the Emergency Operation Center and the data center ($390,000). Additional re- paving of the headquarters parking lot was deferred this year. Budget Variance: Due to deferment of the parking lot re- paving and the planned completion of the FY2010 data center enhancements, the Facilities Construction and Major Renovation activity decreased by about $2 million. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 64 F 04 -05 153, 624, 718 CATEGORY Salaries and Benefits Other Personal Services Operating Expenses Operating Capital Outlay Fixed Capital Outlay Interagency Expenditures Debt Reserves Total Expenditures Total Expenditures (Actual) 11 Al 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 168, 641, 599 182, 037, 637 220, 322, 085 165, 569, 862 AMENDED BUDGET 2009 -2010 61,911,861 17,884,344 81,025,889 1,807,748 41,306,696 2,317,400 7,848,233 18,134,804 $ 232,236,975 PROPOSED BUDGET 2010 -2011 63,303,561 15,013,202 70,688,083 8,984,914 41,460,241 806,647 7,607,883 10,402,611 $ 218,267,142 DIFFERENCE IN $ 1,391,700 (2,871,142) (10,337,806) 7,177,166 153,545 (1,510,753) (240,350) (7,732,193) $ (13,969,833) A % OF CHANGE 2.25% - 16.05% - 12.76% 397.02% 0.37% - 65.19% - 3.06% - 42.64% - 6.02% Personnel Category4 Full -time Equivalents 667 670 4 0.58% 0.00% Contract/Other - 4 0.58% Total Personnel 667 670 This program includes all operation and maintenance of facilities, flood control and water supply structures, lands, and other works authorized by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. 4 FTE Staffing levels rounded to the nearest whole number SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 65 dx 3.1 Land Management Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 29,466,278 27,234,064 25, 352,159 22, 984, 009 AMENDED BUDGET CATEGORY 2009 -2010 Salaries and Benefits 3,244,263 Other Personal Services 759,260 Operating Expenses 6,317,193 Operating Capital Outlay 83,603 Fixed Capital Outlay 1,397,137 Interagency Expenditures - Debt 6,912,397 Reserves 7,732,193 Total Expenditures $ 26,446,046 PROPOSED BUDGET 2010 -2011 3,168,182 560,521 3,242,087 4,722,603 1,435,467 6,904,722 $ 20,033,582 161i'A1 08 -09 14, 458,153 DIFFERENCE IN $ (76,081) (198, 739) (3,075,106) 4,639,000 38,330 % OF CHANGE -2.35% - 26.18% - 48.68% 5548.84% 2.74% (7,675) -0.11% (7,732,193) - 100.00% $ (6,412,464) - 24.25% District Description: Maintenance, custodial, public use improvements, and restoration efforts for lands acquired through Save Our Rivers, Preservation 2000, Florida Forever, or other land acquisition programs. The District manages lands in accordance with the objectives of the State's Save Our Rivers and Florida Forever program. There are two major land management initiatives: • Conservation Lands The Conservation lands management objectives require that these lands be restored to and maintained in a native state and condition and be available for resource based recreation such as hiking, camping, horseback riding, boating, hunting and fishing. The maintenance and restoration needs for these properties usually involve the control of invasive exotic plants, removal of ditches and levees needed to restore the natural flow of water, and control of shrubs and excess trees necessary to restore much of the landscape. In areas of severe degradation, habitats are restored through re- planting of native species. • Water Resource Management Project Lands The Interim Land Management Program is responsible for managing those properties acquired by the District for future water projects, including CERP and other projects until the land is needed for construction. These lands will ultimately be used as stormwater treatment areas, surface water reservoirs, ground water recharge areas, and /or buffer lands between the Everglades and other sensitive areas and urban development. These lands are not specifically acquired or designated for environmental enhancement, restoration or preservation purposes, and are generally not available for recreation due to agricultural uses. Changes and Trends: Sources and levels of funding for this program are changing. Because of reductions in the Water Management Land Trust Fund allocation, debt service is the only expenditure to be paid from this funding source in FY2011. Remaining Land Stewardship activities continue to rely on ad valorem and mitigation SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 66 165 Ai '`funds. Enhanced Patrol, Vegetation and Exotic Control continue at relatively consistent funding levels. Property Taxes and Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) increased as a result of land leases ending and statutory revisions removing the 10 year limitation on PILT payments. Recreation capital projects continue to be a priority to maintain compliance with the master recreation plan. Major Budget Items: FY2011 proposes a funding plan which highlights restoration efforts and continued land management activities. The proposed budget includes $4.6 million for Land Management Services for the 8.5 Square Mile Area, $1.3 million in recreation capital projects including road /parking improvements, trailheads, campground, and $537,000 for property taxes and PILT payments. The District plans to continue partnerships with State agencies for enhanced patrol on district and project lands for $819,000. Budget Variance: The Land Management proposed budget decreased $6.4 million from the amended FY2010 budget. The $7.7 million reserve included in the FY2010 budget was fund balance transferred from the Lake Belt Mitigation Fund to the Wetland Mitigation Fund and is not recurring. Page 67 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission 3.2 Works Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 98, 329, 361 113, 370, 775 128, 395, 039 167, 038, 332 AMENDED BUDGET CATEGORY 2009 -2010 Salaries and Benefits 48,703,934 Other Personal Services 15,942,925 Operating Expenses 51,386,723 Operating Capital Outlay 1,386,473 Fixed Capital Outlay 39,909,559 Interagency Expenditures 1,696,700 Debt 935,836 Reserves 10,402,611 Total Expenditures $ 170,364,761 16 I g ''A 1 08 -09 118, 350, 311 PROPOSED BUDGET 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE IN $ % OF CHANGE 49,696,233 992,299 2.04% 13,346,407 (2,596,518) - 16.29% 44,736,387 (6,650,336) - 12.94% 3,063,262 1,676,789 120.94% 40,019,774 110,215 0.28% 255,647 (1,441,053) - 84.93% 703,161 (232,675) - 24.86% 10,402,611 - 0.00% $ 162,223,482 $ (8,141,279) -4.78% District Description: The works of the District (local sponsor) are an integral part of the operations and maintenance of federal Flood Control Projects. The Project is comprised of over 4,850 miles of canals and levees, 491 water control structures, 65 pumping stations and 12 navigation locks, in addition to 755 smaller project culverts and 80 weirs. To ensure operational readiness of the flood control system, preventive maintenance must be continuously performed. Most portions of the system were constructed 30 -50 years ago and are reaching the end of their design life. Consequently, major refurbishment of various components of the Flood Control Project is now required in order to sustain the viability of the system. Changes and Trends: In FY2011 the District will continue with the implementation of refurbishment plans for operational and capital projects such as critical water control structures and pump stations. Major Budget Items: In FY2011, refurbishment of capital structures continues to be a Governing Board strategic priority. The major capital projects planned for next year include: • Communications & Control Systems Projects: Field equipment replacement, S -6 Tower, S -65 D Tower, S -9 Tower, Shelter (IT), RTU Replacements & North Center Loop Towers /Allapattah /FAES ($2.8 million). Water Control Structures Projects: Fuel Tank Platforms, S -6 Service Bridge Repair, S -127, S -129, S -131, S -133 & S -135 Automation Ph.1 North Shore, S- 140 Refurbishment, S -140 Trash Rake, S -331 Repower & Gear Box, S -331 PS Hardening, S5A Hardening and Service Bridge & S -332D Hurricane hardening ($10.2 million). • Project Culvert Replacement/Bridge Repair: Culvert replacement includes PC04 /L -63N, PC05 /C -15, PC05 /C -16, PC06 /C -15, PC07/ C -24, PC16/C -24, SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 68 1611 Al I '4 PC1 B /C -24, PC36 /C -23, PC44/C -14, PC50 /C -23, PC55 /C -23, PC7 /C -34 and PC8 /C -34. ($.3 million) Structure Automation Projects: S -65, S -65A, S- 61,S -65D Navigation Lock Refurbishment, S -193 Navigational Lock, S -21 Cathodic Protection, Replacement, G -78 , G -79, G81 Automation & Remote Operation, S -124 Gate & Culvert Replacement, S- 131,S- 135,G -36 Lock Hoist Replacement, S -46 Structure Enhancement, S -142/S -143 Automation /Gate Replacement, S -150 Replacement/Automation, S -197 Replacement & S- 44,G -57 Gate Replacement, G -58 Replacement, Henderson Creek Diversion, Golden Gate #3 Replacement, Golden Gate #6 &7 Replacement, Relocation and Corrosion Protection ($32.3 million). O &M Facility Construction & Improvements: B-47 Building Replacement at Miami Field Station, retrofit the Ft. Lauderdale Vehicle Wash Station to capture water used as well as solvents from heavy equipment, Okeechobee SCADA building and BCB Field Station Relocation ($2.5 million). Canal & Levee Maintenance /Canal Conveyance: C- 100 /C -, C- 24,C -41A, G -08 Hillsboro Canal Bank Stabilization, Levee Repairs Program, C-4 Gravity Wall ($14 9 Capacity Program, Survey & Boundary (ROW) g million). In addition to the capital projects above, major budget items include the Stormwater E Treatment Areas (STAs) operations and maintenance, G -251 Trash Rake, STA telemetry project, ($2.8 million), maintenance of the C &SF system and STA structure operations ($16.7 million), structure and pump station maintenance (520.3 million), maintenance of 30,169 acres of canal /levee ($12.0 million), and electronics communication and control ($2.3 million). Other high priority projects for this FY2011 proposed budget are continuation of the Water Management System /Operations Decision Support System $2 2 million). 7million) and North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (N ) Budget Variance: The proposed Works budget is $8.1 million lower than the current year. The FY2011 budget decrease is due to reductions in Big Cypress Basin capital STA reserve and Tree Management, and shifting Interagency Expenditures (Collier County Secondary System) to section 1.1.3. Page 69 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission 33 Facilities 04 -05 3,348,590 CATEGORY Salaries and Benefits Other Personal Services Operating Expenses Operating Capital Outlay Fixed Capital Outlay Interagency Expenditures Debt Reserves Total Expenditures Total Expenditures (Actual) 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 5,657,185 6,255,487 3,712,897 AMENDED PROPOSED BUDGET BUDGET 2009 -2010 2010 -2011 666,881 768,288 95,000 95,000 6,533,307 6,333,461 305,172 3,000 - 5,000 $ 7,600,360 $ 7,204,749 1611 08 -09 6,937,850 DIFFERENCE IN $ 101,407 (199,846) (302,172) 5,000 $ (395,611) Al % OF CHANGE 15.21% 0.00% -3.06% - 99.02% -5.21% District Description: The facilities section manages and maintains both owned and leased administrative buildings for the purposes of operating and maintaining District lands and works. Included in these services is maintenance of the work environment and space management. The facilities mission is to provide expertly managed facilities and the delivery of timely, cost effective services, supplies and solutions that enhance accountability and support the accomplishment of the agency's mission. Changes and Trends: The effort for facilities operations and maintenance is at a decreased level of service due to budget constraints. However, due to aging of the buildings, an increase in maintenance is anticipated in future years. Major Budget Items: FY2011 resources largely consist of recurring facility maintenance, inspection, and utility expenses such as air conditioning maintenance, elevator maintenance and landscape maintenance ($0.6 million), janitorial services ($.6 million) waste disposal services ($65 thousand), utilities ($1.7 million) electrical and general maintenance contractual services ($0.6 million), and building lease payments for the service centers and water quality laboratory ($1.2 million). Budget Variance: Due to a planned decrease in levels of service, the facilities budget has decreased by $0.4 million. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 70 District Description: This program manages invasive exotic and aquatic vegetation within District canals, lakes, and rights -of -way, of the Central and Southern Flood Control Project and other Works of the District. This maintenance is accomplished through in -house and contract herbicidal, mechanical, and biological control methods. This program works primarily to ensure s surveillance of capacity within canals and water and lands for early bodies and provides for the continued detection and control of invasive plants. Changes and Trends: Vegetation management operations have historically been outsourced for all conservation land management activities and conducted in -house by field station staff for all C &SF project works. As Everglades Construction Project (ECP) projects come on -line, field station staff has been increasingly redirected to ECP Stormwater Treatment Areas while outsourcing more of the C &SF works activities. Major Budget Items: The District has had a long relationship with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Bureau of Invasive Plant Management for cost reimbursement of aquatic plant management activities in sovereign waters and for upland exotic management on conservation lands managed by the District's Vegetation Management Division. Funds distributed from the FWC cover 100 percent of the costs for managing aquatic plant issues in the Kissimmee and Alligator Lakes and the Kissimmee River. The FWC shares the total cost of upland exotic plant management in Lake Okeechobee, the Water Conservation Areas (WCAs) and on Save Our Rivers (SOR) lands purchased for conservation purposes. The FY2011 proposed exotic /aquatic plant control activities is $23.1 million. FWC funds in the amount of $3.5 million are included in this budget and will be provided to the District on a reimbursement basis. Budget Variance: The amount of vegetation treatment planned in the budget year depends primarily on the level of available t district budget primarily marilyhdue to0the budget increased by $1 million from the FY2010 amended purchase of replacement fleet equipment. Page 71 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission 1611 31 Invasive Plant Control Total Expenditures (Actual) - 04 -05 20, 731, 396 05 -06 20, 749, 231 06 -07 07 -08 20, 044, 917 20, 550, 525 08 -09 20,149, 001 AMENDED PROPOSED BUDGET 2009 -2010 BUDGET 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE IN $ % OF CHANGE CATEGORY Salaries and Benefits 5,455,039 5,537,528 82,489 90,000 1.51% 21.85% Other Personal Services 411818 , 15,732,419 501,818 15,369,806 (362,613) - 2.30% Operating Expenses - 1,196,049 1,196,049 - Operating Capital Outlay - Fixed Capital Outlay 485,000 485000 , - 0.00% Interagency Expenditures - Debt - - - Reserves Total Expenditures $ 22,084,276 $ 23,090,201 $ 1,005,925 4.55% District Description: This program manages invasive exotic and aquatic vegetation within District canals, lakes, and rights -of -way, of the Central and Southern Flood Control Project and other Works of the District. This maintenance is accomplished through in -house and contract herbicidal, mechanical, and biological control methods. This program works primarily to ensure s surveillance of capacity within canals and water and lands for early bodies and provides for the continued detection and control of invasive plants. Changes and Trends: Vegetation management operations have historically been outsourced for all conservation land management activities and conducted in -house by field station staff for all C &SF project works. As Everglades Construction Project (ECP) projects come on -line, field station staff has been increasingly redirected to ECP Stormwater Treatment Areas while outsourcing more of the C &SF works activities. Major Budget Items: The District has had a long relationship with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Bureau of Invasive Plant Management for cost reimbursement of aquatic plant management activities in sovereign waters and for upland exotic management on conservation lands managed by the District's Vegetation Management Division. Funds distributed from the FWC cover 100 percent of the costs for managing aquatic plant issues in the Kissimmee and Alligator Lakes and the Kissimmee River. The FWC shares the total cost of upland exotic plant management in Lake Okeechobee, the Water Conservation Areas (WCAs) and on Save Our Rivers (SOR) lands purchased for conservation purposes. The FY2011 proposed exotic /aquatic plant control activities is $23.1 million. FWC funds in the amount of $3.5 million are included in this budget and will be provided to the District on a reimbursement basis. Budget Variance: The amount of vegetation treatment planned in the budget year depends primarily on the level of available t district budget primarily marilyhdue to0the budget increased by $1 million from the FY2010 amended purchase of replacement fleet equipment. Page 71 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Reserves Total Expenditures $ 5,741,532 $ 5,715 128 $ (26,404) -0.46% District Description: The activities include emergency management, planning and administrative support of release of reservations, rights -of -way permitting, compliance, and enforcement. Use of District lands is authorized through a leasing process or through issuance of a rights -of -way occupancy permit. This protects the District's proprietary interest on canal and levee rights -of -way. The role of the District Right of Way function is to protect the District's ability to utilize the "Works of the District" for the purposes for which they were acquired, while providing for other appropriate compatible public and private uses. Generally, the "Works of the District" include: the canal and levee rights -of -way of the Central and Southern Flood Control Project, the canals and other works of the Big Cypress Basin, and other canals and rights -of -way in which the District has acquired a property interest such as the Everglades Construction Project, Stormwater Treatment Areas and Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The Mission of the District's Emergency Management Program is to prevent or minimize, prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies or disasters that threaten life or property within the boundaries of the South Florida Water Management District. These activities ensure that the District can accomplish its mission during adverse conditions. Major Budget Items: The proposed budget includes Right of Way access management support and permitting, compliance, and enforcement activities ($703,871). In addition, this section includes Emergency Management security contract ($503,926). Budget Variance: The proposed budget decreased by $26,404 from FY2010 to FY2011. This decrease is a net of more staff time allocated to this activity and reductions in STA compliance and monitoring contracts. Additionally, FY2010 budget included costs for implementation of an emergency management software (WebEOC). SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 72 3.5 Other Operation and Maintenance Activities 16 A i Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 1,749,093 1,630,344 1,990,035 6,036,322 5,674,547 AMENDED PROPOSED CATEGORY BUDGET 2009 -2010 BUDGET 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE IN $ % OF CHANGE Salaries and Benefits Other Personal Services 3,841,744 4,133,330 291,586 7.59% Operating Expenses 675,341 1,056,247 509,456 1,006,342 (165,885) (49,905) - 24.56% Operating Capital Outlay 32,500 (32,500) -4.72% - 100.00% Fixed Capital Outlay - _ Interagency Expenditures Debt 135,700 66,000 (69,700) - 51.36% Reserves Total Expenditures $ 5,741,532 $ 5,715 128 $ (26,404) -0.46% District Description: The activities include emergency management, planning and administrative support of release of reservations, rights -of -way permitting, compliance, and enforcement. Use of District lands is authorized through a leasing process or through issuance of a rights -of -way occupancy permit. This protects the District's proprietary interest on canal and levee rights -of -way. The role of the District Right of Way function is to protect the District's ability to utilize the "Works of the District" for the purposes for which they were acquired, while providing for other appropriate compatible public and private uses. Generally, the "Works of the District" include: the canal and levee rights -of -way of the Central and Southern Flood Control Project, the canals and other works of the Big Cypress Basin, and other canals and rights -of -way in which the District has acquired a property interest such as the Everglades Construction Project, Stormwater Treatment Areas and Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The Mission of the District's Emergency Management Program is to prevent or minimize, prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies or disasters that threaten life or property within the boundaries of the South Florida Water Management District. These activities ensure that the District can accomplish its mission during adverse conditions. Major Budget Items: The proposed budget includes Right of Way access management support and permitting, compliance, and enforcement activities ($703,871). In addition, this section includes Emergency Management security contract ($503,926). Budget Variance: The proposed budget decreased by $26,404 from FY2010 to FY2011. This decrease is a net of more staff time allocated to this activity and reductions in STA compliance and monitoring contracts. Additionally, FY2010 budget included costs for implementation of an emergency management software (WebEOC). SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 72 Personnel CategorY5 Full -time Equivalents 231 234 3 1.21 % 0.00% Contract/Other - 3 1.21% Total Personnel 231 234 This program includes water use permitting, water well construction permitting, water well contractor licensing, environmental resource and surface water management permitting, permit administration and enforcement, and any delegated regulatory program. 5 FTE Staffing levels rounded to the nearest whole number Page 73 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission 1611 Al , 4.0 Regulation Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 14, 654, 913 15, 436, 855 17, 636, 823 22, 615, 314 25, 839, 797 AMENDED PROPOSED BUDGET 2009 -2010 BUDGET 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE IN $ % OF CHANGE CATEGORY Salaries and Benefits 22,292,886 23,167,522 874,636 2,807,243 3.92% 106.06% Other Personal Services 2,646,795 5,454,038 303,871 114,107 (114,107) - 27.30% Operating Expenses 417,978 320,000 276,309 (43,691) - 13.65% Operating Capital Outlay Fixed Capital Outlay 7,250 7,250 - 0.00% Interagency Expenditures - - Debt - _ - Reserves Total Expenditures $ 25,684,909 $ 29,208,990 $ 3,524,081 13.72% Personnel CategorY5 Full -time Equivalents 231 234 3 1.21 % 0.00% Contract/Other - 3 1.21% Total Personnel 231 234 This program includes water use permitting, water well construction permitting, water well contractor licensing, environmental resource and surface water management permitting, permit administration and enforcement, and any delegated regulatory program. 5 FTE Staffing levels rounded to the nearest whole number Page 73 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Total Expenditures $ 6,159,258 $ 6,349,390 $ 190,132 3.09% District Description: Consumptive use permitting is a state - mandated program assigned exclusively to the water management districts. The objective of this program is to ensure safe, efficient, equitable and reliable development of the State's water resources. This program includes the review, issuance, renewal, and enforcement of water use permits. The major components are: 1) Review and prepare recommendations for permit applications for all consumptive uses of water within the District boundaries; and 2) Post - permit compliance reviews of priority projects based on staffing resources. This program also includes pre - permit planning, permit issuance, dispute resolution, litigation support, criteria and rule development, DRI /Siting /Coastal Zone Management support, automation and administrative support, and rulemaking to update consumptive use permit rules to implement the regulatory recommendations of the District's regional water supply plans. Changes and Trends: A major rule update to temporarily protect the water resources of the Central Florida Coordination Area (which comprises all portions of Orange, Osceola and Polk counties within the District) through December 2012 was completed in FY2008. A joint work plan between the 3 Water Management Districts lays out the framework and the milestones for developing rules to protect water resources into the future (beyond the 2012 date). This work plan commits the water use division to extensive technical, policy, rulemaking and workshop activities to develop a long term approach to water resource planning, protection and permitting for that region. Other rule updates to protect water resources include; the Lake Okeechobee Water Availability Rule (effective in October 2008), the Picayune Strand and Fakahatchee Water Reservation rule (effective in June 2009) and the Everglades Regional Water Availability Rule (adopted in 2007). The implementation of these new water resource protection rules has the effect of increasing both the time required and the technical complexity involved in reviewing affected water use applications. It is also anticipated SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 74 4.1 Consumptive Use Permitting 16 ' Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 4,236,368 1,597,172 5,451,151 5,392,354 5,690,468 AMENDED PROPOSED BUDGET BUDGET CATEGORY Salaries and Benefits 2009 -2010 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE IN $ % OF CHANGE Other Personal Services 5,784,811 126,924 6,135,300 178,900 350,489 6.06% Operating Expenses 60,273 27,940 51,976 (32,333) 40.95% - 53.64% Operating Capital Outlay 180,000 - (180,000) - 100.00% Fixed Capital Outlay - _ Interagency Expenditures 7,250 7,250 Debt _ - 0.00% Reserves _ - - Total Expenditures $ 6,159,258 $ 6,349,390 $ 190,132 3.09% District Description: Consumptive use permitting is a state - mandated program assigned exclusively to the water management districts. The objective of this program is to ensure safe, efficient, equitable and reliable development of the State's water resources. This program includes the review, issuance, renewal, and enforcement of water use permits. The major components are: 1) Review and prepare recommendations for permit applications for all consumptive uses of water within the District boundaries; and 2) Post - permit compliance reviews of priority projects based on staffing resources. This program also includes pre - permit planning, permit issuance, dispute resolution, litigation support, criteria and rule development, DRI /Siting /Coastal Zone Management support, automation and administrative support, and rulemaking to update consumptive use permit rules to implement the regulatory recommendations of the District's regional water supply plans. Changes and Trends: A major rule update to temporarily protect the water resources of the Central Florida Coordination Area (which comprises all portions of Orange, Osceola and Polk counties within the District) through December 2012 was completed in FY2008. A joint work plan between the 3 Water Management Districts lays out the framework and the milestones for developing rules to protect water resources into the future (beyond the 2012 date). This work plan commits the water use division to extensive technical, policy, rulemaking and workshop activities to develop a long term approach to water resource planning, protection and permitting for that region. Other rule updates to protect water resources include; the Lake Okeechobee Water Availability Rule (effective in October 2008), the Picayune Strand and Fakahatchee Water Reservation rule (effective in June 2009) and the Everglades Regional Water Availability Rule (adopted in 2007). The implementation of these new water resource protection rules has the effect of increasing both the time required and the technical complexity involved in reviewing affected water use applications. It is also anticipated SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 74 1611'A 1 , 3v,i;rei rulemaki ng efforts will be undertaken to update the Water Use Basis of o ncorporate desired changes that have arisen since the last major rule update which occurred in 2003. The Irrigation Water Use Basin Renewal deadlines have all passed as of the 2nd Quarter of FY2009 which has had the effect of decreasing the overall incoming workload, but incomplete permit applications for all basins are continuing to be reviewed. Additionally, permits within those irrigation basins that were issued with 5 -year duration are due for renewal. Permit applications for new developments and construction projects have been minimized in recent years due to the economic downturn but are expected to increase marginally in the future as the economy recovers. Staff will continue to serve on the newly formed Agricultural Permitting and Compliance Teams to provide technical review of agricultural Water Use Permits. Major Budget Items: Contract funding is proposed for e- permitting scanning to continue to support the E- Permitting effort ($98,900). This funding level supports the review of an average of 475 permit applications, as well as numerous compliance investigations per quarter. Budget Variances: The net change of $0.2 million is due to a personal services increase, less a decrease in operating capital outlay for e- Permitting program services. Page 75 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission 4.3 Environmental Resource and Surface Water Permitting Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 9,216,902 13, 556, 798 11,118, 691 12, 595,151 CATEGORY Salaries and Benefits Other Personal Services Operating Expenses Operating Capital Outlay Fixed Capital Outlay Interagency Expenditures Debt Reserves Total Expenditures 161I Al 14 08 -09 12, 919, 329 AMENDED PROPOSED BUDGET BUDGET 2009 -2010 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE IN $ 11,524,455 11,672,601 148,146 386,271 425,831 39,560 260,889 226,211 (34,678) 140,000 276,309 136,309 $ 12,311,615 $ 12,600,952 $ 289,337 % OF CHANGE 1.29% 10.24% - 13.29% 97.36% 2.35% District Description: This program is a state - mandated program that involves the review, issuance, compliance and enforcement of environmental resource and surface water management permits. The objective of this program is to ensure that land development projects and wetland dredge and fill activities do not cause adverse environmental, water quality, or water quantity impacts and to take necessary compliance action when permit requirements are not met. Activities in this program include technical review and evaluation of construction plans for proposed development activities, field inspection of project sites requesting permits or wetland determinations, compliance review of project sites, and preparation of technical staff reports and review of Sovereign Submerged Lands authorizations associated with ERP permits. This program also includes pre - permit planning, permit issuance, dispute resolution, litigation support, criteria and rule development, DRI /Siting /Coastal Zone Management support, and automation support. Changes and Trends: This ongoing activity produces technical evaluation of proposed surface water management systems at a continued level of service. All applications must be processed within statutorily established time frames. Compliance reviews of issued permits and enforcement actions for unauthorized activities, including the activities listed above are all ongoing activities. In FY2010, two FTE's will continue to serve on the newly formed Agricultural Permitting and Compliance Teams to provide technical review of agricultural ERP Permits. Major Budget Items: Contract funding is proposed for e- permitting scanning and application processing to continue to support the e- Permitting effort ($260,411). This continued funding level supports the review of an average of 390 permit applications and 2,125 compliance investigations per quarter, and staying current with construction certification and conversion. Budget Variance: The $0.3 million increase in the Environmental Resource Permitting budget from FY2010 is primarily due to funding for scheduled vehicle replacement. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 76 6 A l � 11 4.4 Other Regulatory and enforcement activities not otherwise categorized above. Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 1,201,643 282,885 1,066,981 4,627,808 7,230,000 CATEGORY Salaries and Benefits Other Personal Services Operating Expenses Operating Capital Outlay Fixed Capital Outlay Interagency Expenditures Debt Reserves Total Expenditures AMENDED PROPOSED BUDGET 2009 -2010 BUDGET 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE $ 4,983,620 5,359,621 2,133,600 4,849,307 2,715,707 96,816 49,720 (47,096) $ 7,214,036 $ 10,258,648 $ 3,044,612 District Description: Nutrient Source Control Programs % OF CHANGE 7.54% 127.28% - 48.64% 42.20% The Federal Settlement Agreement, Everglades Forever Act (EFA), and Long -term Plan mandate the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the Everglades Construction Project (ECP) Basins, including the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) and the C -139 Basins. The non -ECP Basins tributary to the Everglades utilizes a cooperative approach to control phosphorus in discharges. The major basin components are: 1) EAA Basin - Continued implementation of the best management practices (BMP) regulatory program to ensure a 25 percent phosphorus load reduction compared to historical flows discharged from the basin; conduct research in cooperation with permittees to develop BMPs for additional water quality parameters; calculate the annual Everglades Agricultural Area phosphorus reductions; and quantify BMP replacement water. 2) C -139 Basin: Monitor to ensure no net increase of annual phosphorus loads discharged from the basin; implement the BMP regulatory program; and provide opportunities for research and demonstration projects. 3) Non -ECP Basins: Implement source control programs through existing permits and cooperative agreements /contracts. The Lake Okeechobee phosphorus source control program was initially mandated under the Lake Okeechobee Protection Act (LOPA) which was amended in 2007 to become the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Plan (NEEPP). The major components are implementation of BMPs under programs by the coordinating agencies so using a combination of regulatory, voluntary, Cei controleprograms to the St ItLulc e expanded the authority for future regulatory sour and Caloosahatchee River Watersheds. This category also includes overall management and administrative support for the entire Everglades regulatory program. The budget is primarily personnel costs, supplemental sub - regional projects, and cost share funding for BMP demonstration projects. Page 77 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission 161 es and Trends: T ' Changes he latest changes and trends include consideration of downstream sub - regional capital projects in addition to BMPs to further improve water quality. Additionally, the onsite BMP component of the source control program continues to evolve based on the latest findings of research and demonstration projects. The demonstration projects in particular are expected to provide invaluable information for use in future onsite water quality improvement measures. The C -139 Basin and the Lake Okeechobee watershed source control programs are under review for amendments to support BMP program optimization. These amendments will focus on a requirement for all land uses to implement BMPs and the District assessing BMP performance based on regional and sub - regional monitoring. The monitoring network will also help guide future BMP implementation initiatives. In addition, the District is utilizing other regulatory programs, such as Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP), for improving water quality. Data evaluation is underway in support of future rulemaking for the River watersheds. Major Budget Items: Resources have decreased with regard to Best Management Practices implementation in the Everglades Agricultural Area and non -ECP Basins and increased in areas of sub - regional projects (C -139 Basin) and rulemaking efforts in expanded regions (St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee River Watersheds) for a net increase in budget dollars. Resources are proposed to continue to support implementation of the Everglades Forever Act ($766,695); supplemental sub - regional projects for the C -139 Basin ($3,124,435); Lake Okeechobee regulatory source control rule amendments ($50,000); developing supporting technical documents for future rulemaking in the river watersheds ($477,500 for Caloosahatchee River and $69,675 for St. Lucie River) and Lake Okeechobee Watershed Assessment Monitoring for ($296,337). Budget Variance: The $3.0 million net increase is due primarily to the increased funding of the District's source control initiative to consider sub - regional projects to supplement BMPs and to expand the program to the river watersheds. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 78 04 -05 7,097,939 CATEGORY Salaries and Benefits Other Personal Services Operating Expenses Operating Capital Outlay Fixed Capital Outlay Interagency Expenditures Debt Reserves Total Expenditures I 5.0 Outreach 1611 A Total Expenditures (Actual) 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 7,548,222 5,966,922 6,159, 416 6,616,054 AMENDED BUDGET 2009 -2010 5,164,558 128,100 356,215 2,000 5,000 $ 5,655,873 PROPOSED BUDGET 2010 -2011 5,942,246 109,000 406,882 205,000 $ 6,663,128 DIFFERENCE IN $ 777,688 (19,100) 50,667 (2,000) $ 1,007,255 7 % OF CHANGE 15.06% -14.91% 14.22% - 100.00% 4000.00% 17.81% Personnel Category6 Full -time Equivalents 47 53 - 6 13.51% 0.00% Contract/Other - 6 13.51% Total Personnel 47 53 This program includes all environmental education activities, such as water conservation and water resource education; public information activities; intergovernmental and community support activities and media relations activities, including public service announcements. 6 FTE Staffing levels rounded to the nearest whole number Page 79 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission 5.2 Public Information Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 6,907,232 7,349,525 5,743,152 5,909,344 CATEGORY Salaries and Benefits Other Personal Services Operating Expenses Operating Capital Outlay Fixed Capital Outlay Interagency Expenditures Debt Reserves Total Expenditures AMENDED BUDGET 2009 -2010 4,936,912 128,100 332,540 2,000 5,000 $ 5,404,552 PROPOSED BUDGET 2010 -2011 5,711,626 109,000 363,812 205,000 $ 6,389,438 1611 Al 4 08 -09 6,356,591 DIFFERENCE IN $ 774,714 (19,100) 31,272 (2,000) 200,000 % OF CHANGE 15.69% -14.91% 9.40% - 100.00% 4000.00% $ 984,886 18.22% District Description: This outreach component is designed to reach very broad audiences in an effort to provide increased awareness of water resource issues and the roles /responsibilities of the District. This includes the development and distribution of publications, public service programming, focus groups, meetings, presentations, direct mail, media relations and use of the internet to provide factual information regarding District structure, functions, programs, project budgets and other operational aspects. Changes and Trends: The District has moved toward a year -round water conservation program to address the region's water shortage and supply needs. Additionally, the River of Grass Acquisition, Northern Everglades and Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plans continue to be priorities for the District, and further outreach initiatives are likely to take place in these areas. Major Budget Items: The District works to leverage opportunities for free and earned media and outreach, e- newsletters are created and distributed and the District's web site contains updated information about the priority programs and water resource related issues. In addition, the District participates in local community outreach events to present information about water conservation and major projects ($477,812). Also included are contributions to the Water Management in South Florida exhibit expansion for the Museum of Discovery and Science in Broward County and the Miami Metro Zoo ($200,000). Budget Variance: Overall the budget in this category for FY2011 represents an increase of about $1.0 million from the FY2010 budget due primarily to an agency -wide realignment of staff to centralize and enhance public information. In addition, more funding was allocated for priority outreach activities and programs than in FY2010. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 80 1611 Al 5.4 Lobbying /Legislative Affairs /Cabinet Affairs Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 190,707 198,698 223,770 250,072 259,463 CATEGORY Salaries and Benefits Other Personal Services Operating Expenses Operating Capital Outlay Fixed Capital Outlay Interagency Expenditures Debt Reserves Total Expenditures AMENDED BUDGET 2009 -2010 227,646 23,675 $ 251,321 PROPOSED BUDGET 2010 -2011 230,620 43,070 $ 273,690 DIFFERENCE IN $ 2,974 19,395 $ 22,369 % OF CHANGE 1.31% 81.92% 8.90% District Description: This outreach component provides information and materials to state and federal elected officials and staff regarding water management initiatives and priorities. It includes the District's federal legislative program, which works with congressional delegation members, and staff as well as the District's state legislative program, which works with the Florida Legislature, its committees, and off - session coordination with legislatively appointed committees and delegations. Changes and Trends: This activity represents a continuation level of service at the same resource level. The District is either the lead, or a key player, in implementing numerous multi -year state and federal partnership efforts, which requires accurate and timely communication. Major Budget Items: Primarily Personnel Costs. Budget Variance: Reflects nominal increase in salaries for staff support of these activities and succession planning. Page 81 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission This program includes all governing and basin board support; executive support; management information systems; unrestricted reserves; and general counsel, ombudsman, human resources, finance, audit, risk management, and administrative services. FTE Staffing levels rounded to the nearest whole number SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 82 6.0 District Mana g ement and Administration 1611 Al Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 67, 419,186 91, 316, 631 91, 810, 082 88, 794, 238 83, 266, 900 AMENDED PROPOSED BUDGET BUDGET CATEGORY 2009 -2010 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE IN $ % OF CHANGE Salaries and Benefits 43,941,283 43,799,377 (141,906) -0.32% Other Personal Services 17,918,520 15,836,652 (2,081,868) - 11.62% Operating Expenses 54,351,190 56,554,696 2,203,506 4.05% Operating Capital Outlay 1,166,141 1,304,650 138,509 11.88% Fixed Capital Outlay - - _ Interagency Expenditures - - _ Debt 1,313,335 1,264,913 (48,422) -3.69% Reserves 9,076,343 9,377,574 301,231 3.32% Total Expenditures $ 127,766,812 $ 128,137,862 $ 371,050 0.29% Personnel Category' Full-time Equivalents 368 365 (3) -0.88% Contract/Other - Total Personnel 368 - 365 (3) 0.00% -0.88% This program includes all governing and basin board support; executive support; management information systems; unrestricted reserves; and general counsel, ombudsman, human resources, finance, audit, risk management, and administrative services. FTE Staffing levels rounded to the nearest whole number SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 82 1611 �A ,S 1 -''. 6.1 Administrative and Operations Support Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 34, 938, 272 52, 361, 400 55, 935, 616 53, 298, 378 47, 462, 035 District Description: This activity supports the District's line organizations and plays a key role in accomplishing District goals and objectives by providing executive direction, financial and human resources expertise, legal advice, counsel and representation, procurement, risk management, and general support functions. The mission of our administrative offices is to provide the highest quality and cost effective human, business, and technical services that enable our customers and employees to succeed. These activities are vital for effective management, informed decision - making and mandatory/statutory compliance and to help ensure our organization can accomplish its mission in a timely, planned, and organized fashion. Changes and Trends: The District continues to improve and refine the Business Enterprise System that has modernized and re- engineered the District's business processes by adopting the best practices embodied in an industry- leading software package (SAP). For FY2011 the District plans to complete implementation of the budget preparation module to increase efficiency of management planning and reporting. Additionally, work will begin on implementation of a Governance, Risk, and Compliance module (GRC) to improve internal controls. Major Budget Items: During FY2010 the District implemented a health self insurance program in an effort to reduce increases in health insurance costs. In addition to health self insurance ($29.2 million) and the continuation of ongoing administrative support functions, resources are proposed in FY2011 for the continued support and refinement of the SAP Business Enterprise System as follows: The District plans to complete implementation of the Budget Preparation module which will help improve the current budget and planning process ($895,000), begin implementation of the GRC modules (primarily staff time), continuing technical support ($650,000), and continuing production support ($948,000). Other major budget items include Debt Service ($1.3 million), auditing services ($286,000), property insurance ($550,000) and workers compensation ($2,240,000). Budget Variance: Overall the budget in this category for FY2011 represents a net increase from the FY2010 budget due to an increase in salaries and benefits. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 83 AMENDED PROPOSED CATEGORY BUDGET 2009 -2010 BUDGET 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE IN $ % OF CHANGE Salaries and Benefits 31,298,411 32,626,311 1,327,900 4.24% Other Personal Services 12,043,069 8,693,783 (3,349,286) - 27.81% Operating Expenses 36,604,489 39,123,933 - 2,519,444 (88,541) 6.88% - 100.00% Operating Capital Outlay 88,541 Fixed Capital Outlay - Interagency Expenditures 1,313,335 1,264,913 (48,422) - 3.69% Debt Reserves Total Expenditures $ 81,347,845 $ 81,708,940 $ 361,095 0.44% District Description: This activity supports the District's line organizations and plays a key role in accomplishing District goals and objectives by providing executive direction, financial and human resources expertise, legal advice, counsel and representation, procurement, risk management, and general support functions. The mission of our administrative offices is to provide the highest quality and cost effective human, business, and technical services that enable our customers and employees to succeed. These activities are vital for effective management, informed decision - making and mandatory/statutory compliance and to help ensure our organization can accomplish its mission in a timely, planned, and organized fashion. Changes and Trends: The District continues to improve and refine the Business Enterprise System that has modernized and re- engineered the District's business processes by adopting the best practices embodied in an industry- leading software package (SAP). For FY2011 the District plans to complete implementation of the budget preparation module to increase efficiency of management planning and reporting. Additionally, work will begin on implementation of a Governance, Risk, and Compliance module (GRC) to improve internal controls. Major Budget Items: During FY2010 the District implemented a health self insurance program in an effort to reduce increases in health insurance costs. In addition to health self insurance ($29.2 million) and the continuation of ongoing administrative support functions, resources are proposed in FY2011 for the continued support and refinement of the SAP Business Enterprise System as follows: The District plans to complete implementation of the Budget Preparation module which will help improve the current budget and planning process ($895,000), begin implementation of the GRC modules (primarily staff time), continuing technical support ($650,000), and continuing production support ($948,000). Other major budget items include Debt Service ($1.3 million), auditing services ($286,000), property insurance ($550,000) and workers compensation ($2,240,000). Budget Variance: Overall the budget in this category for FY2011 represents a net increase from the FY2010 budget due to an increase in salaries and benefits. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 83 1 6.2 Computers /Computer Support 161 1 Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 08 -09 26, 915, 810 33, 570, 240 33, 368,163 29,447,976 29, 913, 331 AMENDED PROPOSED CATEGORY Salaries and Benefits BUDGET 2009 -2010 BUDGET 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE IN $ % OF CHANGE Other Personal Services 12,642,872 5,875,451 11,173,066 (1,469,806) ° - 11.63/0 Operating Expenses 8,951,199 7,142,869 9,118,703 1,267,418 21.57% Operating Capital Outlay 1,077 600 1,304,650 167,504 1.87% Fixed Capital Outlay _ 227,050 21.07% Interagency Expenditures Debt - - Reserves - Total Expenditures $ 28,547,122 $ 28,739,288 $ 192,166 ° 0.67 /° District Description: This program is responsible for building and maintaining the District's underlying information technology infrastructure. It is comprised of information technology security, project management, business operations, geographical information systems, web development, desktop solutions, information technology services, applications development, systems administration, and network management. The overall objective of this program is to provide information and communication technologies to staff supporting the District's mission. This program also secures technical solutions that address the information and communication needs of the public. A large portion of this activity's budget is related to maintenance and support of the District's hardware and software; systems administration; as well as managing, maintaining, and enhancing the District's computer infrastructure. This infrastructure includes a substantial computing network that ties together all remote offices throughout the District's 16- county jurisdiction. Changes and Trends: This activity includes a deceased level of service with reductions in service levels and project costs. Major Budget Items: Major budget items include $1.8 million for hardware maintenance, $4.8 million for software maintenance, $1.9 million for installation and leasing of personal computers, $1.2 million for telecommunications (phone service including cell phones), $0.5 million for computer hardware, $0.5 million for copier /printer leases and $5.6 million for computer consulting services in support of District Projects such as Web re- design, Operations Decision Support System, Portal Application, Web Services, and Help Desk Support. Budget Variance: The budget for computer support reflects an increase in FY2011 of $0.2 million primarily due to upgrades of the Oracle database and land use data for water supply planning and modeling. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 84 f 6.3 keiirves 04 -05 CATEGORY Salaries and Benefits Other Personal Services Operating Expenses Operating Capital Outlay Fixed Capital Outlay Interagency Expenditures Debt Reserves Total Expenditures Total Expenditures (Actual) 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 AMENDED BUDGET 2009 -2010 9,076,343 $ 9,076,343 PROPOSED BUDGET 2010 -2011 9,377,574 $ 9,377,574 W M DIFFERENCE IN $ 301,231 $ 301,231 A1. % OF CHANGE 3.32% 3.32% District Description: The District budgets reserves in two categories — contingency and managerial. Contingency reserves are budgeted for the unexpected and unforeseen demand in service delivery costs or unexpected expenditure after adoption of the budget. Managerial reserves are budgeted for special projects for which funding control is necessary or for projects for which a need is known, but spending plans are still under refinement — these funds are included within the project activity sections. Major Budget Items: There are three items that comprise the contingency reserves; Big Cypress, District and Okeechobee Contingency Reserves. The District has budgeted $0.3 million to Big Cypress, $3.1 million for District, and $4.2 million to Okeechobee Contingency Reserves. Budget Variances: District FY2011 reserves budget is slightly higher than the current year due to increases in managerial reserves. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 85 t, -h 6.4 Other (Tax Collector /Property Appraiser fees) Total Expenditures (Actual) 04 -05 05 -06 06 -07 07 -08 5,565,104 5,384,991 2,506,302 6,047,884 Total Expenditures $ 8,795,502 1611 08 -09 5,891,534 PROPOSED BUDGET 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE IN $ % OF CHANGE 8,312,060 (483,442) -5.50% $ 8,312,060 $ (483,442) -5.50% District Description: This program element is comprised of county tax collector and property appraiser fees. Tax collector fees are calculated as a percent of taxes collected by the tax collector on behalf of the District. Property appraiser fees are charged based on the District's share of responsibility for the respective Property Appraisers' operating budgets. Major Budget Items: Commissions and property appraiser fees for Big Cypress Basin ($452,581), District ($3,983,559) and Okeechobee Basin ($3,875,920). Budget Variance: Tax collector and property appraiser fees are budgeted on an annual basis as deemed appropriate using the methods described above. Property a fees decreased based on projected reduction in costs and actual past year costs. appraiser SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 86 AMENDED BUDGET CATEGORY 2009 -2010 Salaries and Benefits _ Other Personal Services _ Operating Expenses 8,795,502 Operating Capital Outlay - Fixed Capital Outlay _ Interagency Expenditures _ Debt _ Reserves Total Expenditures $ 8,795,502 1611 08 -09 5,891,534 PROPOSED BUDGET 2010 -2011 DIFFERENCE IN $ % OF CHANGE 8,312,060 (483,442) -5.50% $ 8,312,060 $ (483,442) -5.50% District Description: This program element is comprised of county tax collector and property appraiser fees. Tax collector fees are calculated as a percent of taxes collected by the tax collector on behalf of the District. Property appraiser fees are charged based on the District's share of responsibility for the respective Property Appraisers' operating budgets. Major Budget Items: Commissions and property appraiser fees for Big Cypress Basin ($452,581), District ($3,983,559) and Okeechobee Basin ($3,875,920). Budget Variance: Tax collector and property appraiser fees are budgeted on an annual basis as deemed appropriate using the methods described above. Property a fees decreased based on projected reduction in costs and actual past year costs. appraiser SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 86 1611 Al. District Specific Programs and Activities The following two programs — the District Everglades Program (Everglades Forever Act projects) and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan — are unique to the South Florida Water Management District.A ara below. narratives and programmatic spreadsheets for each of these p ro g ams are p r District Everglades Program District Description: The District Everglades Program is focused we ash the FSe tllementpAgreelment. This Act the Everglades Forever Act (EFA) as w directed the District to acquire land and to design, perm construct and operate a set of Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) to reduce phosphorus levels from stormwater run- off and other sources before it enters the Everglades Protection Area. Land acquisition has been completed and construction of the first phase of the ECP consisting of approximately 45,000 acres of STAs and other structural components is complete. The 1994 EFA also required the District to investigate technologies that may be superior to the STAs. This research program was completed in FY2004. The goal of the District Everglades Program is to contribute to Everglades restoration by restoring water quality, hydrology, and ecology. Changes and Trends: ment Long -Term Plan projects to achieve water quality The District continues to imple standards. In addition to the Long -Term Plan, wateer Prot ailm (nolw called the N Everglades ECP Regulatory Program and the Everglades St 9 Basins Program and included as part of the Long -Term Plan). In addition to the Long -Term Plan, the District continues to conduct and publish applied research on Everglades' ecology. Construction of the final build -out of Compartments B and C will continue in FY2011. The implementation of the Long -Term Plan projects, including Operations and Maintenance (O &M), research and monitoring continues at an increased level of service at a higher resource level due to increased acreage of STA treatment cells. Just under 14,000 additional acres of stormwater treatment is currently under construction south of Lake Okeechobee -- the expansion of STA -2 (Compartment B) in Palm Beach County and the creation of additional treatment in the area between STA -5 and STA -6 (Compartment C) in Hendry County. The FY2011 budget includes a total of $3.45 million for the additional personnel, tion of this operating costs, and contractual stormwater t eatment support resources necessary to start op era acreage. Court requirements call for the operational and levees turned capable by forecember new STAs to be flow 2010. Structures are projected to be op maintenance by June 2011; and pump stations substantially complete by December 2011. Page 87 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission 16 I Q 4 Major Budget Items: The following major projects are outlined in the FY2011 Annual Work Plan: Long -Term Plan: o EAA STAs on Compartments B and C: Design and construction of the first phase of expanded STAs consisting of approximately 5,000 acres of additional treatment area described in the revised Part 2 of the Long -Term Plan is complete. This includes STA -6 Section 2, a new Cell 4 for STA -2, and a new Flow -way 3 for STA -5. The construction of these two expedited projects was financed through the issuance of Certificates of Participation (COPS). Design for the final build -out of these projects was conducted in FY2008; construction began in FY2009, continued in FY2010, and will continue through FY2011 ($111.5 million). • STA Performance Optimization: Operational monitoring of the STAs, hydraulic and water quality ($3.3 million). • Source Controls and BMPs: Continue implementing the source control /BMP studies and grant projects described in the Long -Term Plan. In addition, the EFA Regulatory Source Control Program was added to the Long -Term Plan in FY2008 and will continue in FY2011 ($4 million). • Recovery of Impacted Areas in the EPA: Develop final report on researching options for accelerating recovery (Fire Project) ($72 K). • O &M: Continue STA operations and maintenance, including vegetation management, site management and STA permit- required monitoring ($16.4 million). • Everglades Research & Evaluation, Loxahatchee Impoundment Landscape Assessment (LILA) and baseline operating costs will continue in FY2011 ($860K). Funding for the Cattail Habitat Improvement Project (CHIP), Exotic and Invasive Species Study, Hydrology of the Ridge and Slough Environment, Annual Wading Bird Report, and Tree Island Studies have all been reduced due to budget constraints. The District is constructing a testing and diagnostics laboratory. This lab is scheduled to begin construction in August 2010, and construction is due to be completed by September 2011. Approximately $7.8 million is anticipated to be spent on the project in FY2011. This amount includes the construction contract, external construction management consultant, external engineering- during- construction consultant and external LEED accreditation consultant. Budget Variance: An overall budget increase of about $30 million from FY2010 to FY2011 is due primarily to increase of reserves and capital construction project as well as increased funding for source controls and Best Management Practices studies and grants. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 88 1611 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan District Description: The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) is the framework for the restoration, protection, and preservation of the water resources of central and southern Florida, including the Everglades, as approved by Congress under Title VI, Section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000. The CERP contains more than 60 major components that involve the creation of approximately 217,000 acres of reservoirs and wetland -based water treatment areas. These components will vastly improve the quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of water for the South Florida environment. Benefits will be widespread and include improvements in: • Lake Okeechobee • The Caloosahatchee River and Estuary • The St. Lucie River and Estuary • The Indian River Lagoon • Biscayne Bay • Florida Bay • The Picayune Strand • The Everglades proper, including: o The Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge o Water Conservations Areas 2 and 3 • Everglades National Park • Big Cypress National Preserve In addition, the Plan will improve or sustain water supplies for urban and agricultural needs, while maintaining current Central and Southern Florida (C &SF) Flood Control Project purposes. The CERP includes feasibility studies for the Water Preserve Areas (WPAs), Indian River Lagoon, Southwest Florida and Florida Bay / Florida Keys. These last two feasibility studies are mentioned earlier in section 1.1.3, "Other Water Resource Projects." Also included are pilot projects to test technologies, such as Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) and seepage management methods, which are essential to the implementation of the CERP. The CERP also includes seven Critical Restoration Projects (CRPs), for which Project Cooperative Agreements were executed by the USACE and the District in FY2000. Page 89 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission -'The CERP program encompasses: • Planning and evaluation • Pre - construction engineering and design • Real estate acquisition and land management • Permitting • Capital construction and operations • Environmental remediation and mitigation 1611E °Al • A science -based monitoring and assessment effort (RECOVER), and • Program management activities. Changes and Trends: Implementation of the CERP began with the execution of the Design Agreement between the USACE and the District in May 2000. The Master Program Management Plan describes the framework and process to be used by the USACE and the District for managing and monitoring implementation of the CERP, which was completed in August 2000. The Master Agreement between the USACE and the District was completed. Major Budget Items: Major budget items to implement the CERP in FY2011 include: Initial or continued design, construction, and other activities for projects: • C -111 Spreader Canal construction ($15.9 million) — Includes construction and construction management of FY 2011 budgeted phase of C -111 spreader canal northern structures (pump station, canals, and impoundment) and southern structures (pump station, canals, and earthen plugs of Aerojet and C -110 canals). • Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands ($31.6 million) — Includes $20 million for land acquisition and for construction of the Deering Estates, and the Cutler Flowway C -1 components. • North Palm Beach County - Part 1 ($3.3 million) — Includes $2 million to continue the L -8 Pump Station design and initiate construction. In addition, $1.3 million is budgeted to complete the draft Project Implementation Report (PIR) for North Palm Beach County Part 1. • Indian River Lagoon — South ($9.6 million) — C -44 Reservoir ($8.8 million) — In conjunction with the USACE, to continue the construction of the reservoir and it components. SFWMD is the lead on communication tower construction. • Picayune Strand Restoration ($.8 million) — Includes $0.3 million to provide engineering and construction oversight of USACE construction efforts. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 90 . x A Construction; end monitoring of Critical Restoration Projects: 1611 1 • Southern Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) /Imperial River Flow -way ($6.6 million) — Includes $6.5 million to acquire the remaining land necessary for the project. • Lake Trafford Restoration ($2.1 million) — to complete the dredging of Lake Trafford. • CERP Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring ($2.3 million) - To complete reports on the health, density, and distribution of East and West Coast oyster populations and the wet and dry season food chain to support wading birds in the Greater Everglades, and prepare the CERP Report Card and the Annual System -wide Assessment Report. • Lake Okeechobee water retention /phosphorus removal ($0.07 million) — To complete water quality compliance monitoring. • CERP Program Management and Support ($16 million) — Includes $15.7 million for debt service associated with the 2006 series COPS financing. Budget Variance: The CERP program reflects a net decrease of $393.9 million from the FY2010 amended budget of $756.3 million to the FY2011 proposed budget of $362.4 million. Although there is an increase of $19.9 million for Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands due to a pending land acquisition condemnation case, the budget decrease is primarily due tc reductions in state funding and District reserves for CERP water quality and capital projects. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 91 1611 Al 4 B. Program and Activity Allocation by Area of Responsibility This section provides a spreadsheet of district expenditures by program, activity, and area of responsibility for fiscal years 2008 -2009, 2009 -2010 and 2010 -2011. These breakdowns are based on the statutory requirements of section 373.536, Florida Statutes, and on an identification of key district activities within the statutory program areas. Expenditures in the four areas of responsibility (AOR) I provided only at the program level. These AOR (water supply, water quality, flood protection, and natural systems) allocations are estimates only and do not reflect the overlap between the areas of responsibility. For instance, a land acquisition project can serve more than one purpose (i.e., flood protection/ floodplain management and natural systems). Therefore, the AOR expenditures should be viewed only as one indication of whether the district is adequately addressing each area of responsibility. The overlap between the AORs is indicated where there is an "`x' placed under more than one area of responsibility for an activity in the statements following the narrative. NOTE: In fiscal year 2001 -2002, program definitions were revised for activities 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 5.0, 6.1, and 6.2. Also, the 2.6 - Everglades Construction Project (ECP) and 2.7 - Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) designations for South Florida Water Management District have been eliminated from the standard spreadsheet presentation based on discussions with the Governor's Office. Individual spreadsheets for ECP and CERP are provided in the Non - standard Program and Activities section. The activity and sub - activity descriptions have been revised to group district activities in more detail and in a manner that more closely resembles those reported by state agencies. Spreadsheets for all years have been restated based on the revised definitions. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 92 f+ v Q C O rn O W N C4 0 O Q U. p z Q rn �q li. O Q' [Z co rn a� rn m a N N N O O +_' C Q > 0 v CD C Q L C fn C N C p 0 d .N O O N N a) O L C r fn to m O CL Co O Q O a C co E c: O O C O 0 ) > O c tm O Q C � m c m E O > C ` >, O O o C -O > U U) E c 0 p a) d c U c o a) O n a) c o v a) r- D _ a(O N � o c a c o L E cu CL W v W 0 0 0 E � ) U) o o c a m o -0 o 0) O d _0 p_ arn m m a) a > o o 0 C c ) E CN o > 3 c p Y Ll aU ) E N O c c p U O 0 -a (0 fn a) O p Co ' a) c a) U , M 7 ca °� � 2 O O c Q a� m �' E� N� m n U = m a a) can °� °1 cn IL N M �. O '7 7 O tS m e n Q) > L m n (T O N N N O to U m N a) 0 E c d' d> �- ` U N N N N a) U a) Q y :. ,> L 7 a O 3 .L- f�A U L C Co U m p > .L. c O m C .L- m o cn a) m- o L° cn O ri O c J� ►i S O o U w 0 = F- O J r r N M LO t0 r N M m r N M Ln N cM CM M O J C U 3 L L6 G N N nj N N N C O O O M LO N c 0 U) U) (D rn v ca a) c a) H O O N } LL L>L. U) Lo L,) N O O M 0 0 0 00 M 161 O OO 1. A O !Ito C) 0 r-- CD 'CT ti ao O 0) ) O) cfl M oo 0 0 N M M Cfl ti O O M cfl M M C O ti cD w Ca M LO N M O M 01 00 O O ti O LO O I- ti O O O � tG O Q O N f� N c0 LO O 76 E L r) Go �vj r- O LO 0 � 0 ti O X !C X X X O X X N ti = N� ti O) X X X X X X M X X X X M co N co w d' a0 (D O Ln IA LO � r CU (� } N O LD ti N °r° co O m yr w .- Z co O N O J , 00 a0 la M %- N N to Q N O M ti ti Ln N -012 t0 C; X X co Csi i<X>CXX LO XX M p� co XX XXX r IL O M M Go 61% 0.. fA 44 ER O) to co It Q O � N O :3 CCL Lo `* X X Ln oo X X X X o X X W d (o X X X X X � X Ly V- oo fi4 r Cq L � 61% Q 44 N w M In CD LIB +O'' 0. N LLn M to Q T- X X X X X X X X X X N X X X U) to X X X X X X X a) CO) ti O Q 61). f+ v Q C O rn O W N C4 0 O Q U. p z Q rn �q li. O Q' [Z co rn a� rn m a N N N O O +_' C Q > 0 v CD C Q L C fn C N C p 0 d .N O O N N a) O L C r fn to m O CL Co O Q O a C co E c: O O C O 0 ) > O c tm O Q C � m c m E O > C ` >, O O o C -O > U U) E c 0 p a) d c U c o a) O n a) c o v a) r- D _ a(O N � o c a c o L E cu CL W v W 0 0 0 E � ) U) o o c a m o -0 o 0) O d _0 p_ arn m m a) a > o o 0 C c ) E CN o > 3 c p Y Ll aU ) E N O c c p U O 0 -a (0 fn a) O p Co ' a) c a) U , M 7 ca °� � 2 O O c Q a� m �' E� N� m n U = m a a) can °� °1 cn IL N M �. O '7 7 O tS m e n Q) > L m n (T O N N N O to U m N a) 0 E c d' d> �- ` U N N N N a) U a) Q y :. ,> L 7 a O 3 .L- f�A U L C Co U m p > .L. c O m C .L- m o cn a) m- o L° cn O ri O c J� ►i S O o U w 0 = F- O J r r N M LO t0 r N M m r N M Ln N cM CM M O J C U 3 L L6 G N N nj N N N C O O O M LO N c 0 U) U) (D rn v ca a) c a) H O O N } LL L>L. U) Lo L,) N O O M 0 0 0 00 M r O OO 0) M O W 0 r C) 0 r-- CD 'CT ti ao O 0) ) O) cfl M oo 0 0 i M M Cfl ti O O cM cfl M M C O ti cD Ca M LO N O M 01 00 O O ti O LO O I- ti O O O O tG O Q O N f� O c0 LO 00 LO c0 ct Go �vj r- O LO 0 � 0 ti w LO LO L19 M M d ti r LO V- M O O 00 CO M N tG r W O M LO T- C) ti O) r O ti O co N co w d' a0 (D O Ln IA LO � W (� } N O LD ti N M LO O N O m w .- N N O J , 00 a0 la M N N to Q N f+ v Q C O rn O W N C4 0 O Q U. p z Q rn �q li. O Q' [Z co rn a� rn m a N N N O O +_' C Q > 0 v CD C Q L C fn C N C p 0 d .N O O N N a) O L C r fn to m O CL Co O Q O a C co E c: O O C O 0 ) > O c tm O Q C � m c m E O > C ` >, O O o C -O > U U) E c 0 p a) d c U c o a) O n a) c o v a) r- D _ a(O N � o c a c o L E cu CL W v W 0 0 0 E � ) U) o o c a m o -0 o 0) O d _0 p_ arn m m a) a > o o 0 C c ) E CN o > 3 c p Y Ll aU ) E N O c c p U O 0 -a (0 fn a) O p Co ' a) c a) U , M 7 ca °� � 2 O O c Q a� m �' E� N� m n U = m a a) can °� °1 cn IL N M �. O '7 7 O tS m e n Q) > L m n (T O N N N O to U m N a) 0 E c d' d> �- ` U N N N N a) U a) Q y :. ,> L 7 a O 3 .L- f�A U L C Co U m p > .L. c O m C .L- m o cn a) m- o L° cn O ri O c J� ►i S O o U w 0 = F- O J r r N M LO t0 r N M m r N M Ln N cM CM M O J C U 3 L L6 G N N nj N N N C O O O M LO N c 0 U) U) (D rn v ca a) c a) H O O N } LL L>L. U) 1611'' AI M C O ` a C C lA ^ Cn O L O (J> N •-' CL W _y C .-c E X X E ` O ui O U •-• N � Q <n ns O � a c o r O rn Cu a C � CO C a � O U CLO to U c a) E O d a m Mn C U cep U) CO d C Co C Z p U C co (n U (/� Oa C O O T C f° v C 0) c *' yr o U c a) c m rn V ° c o a a j a) ° > a� N m a a° c`o a) a X X O vi L � U) a c c`a o ° c p > 0 a a a o .� co cu N Q LD Z a) U U �>— Ca c°n 0 0 co U cn 0+ C o ° cn 7 00 d Q � L � 0 V 13 a O c `- a) o cn a� U H O O U o 0 co Q a U E E a a U a O UN N N n c o L a A L_ LL 0) cc O m � ° °S�a i OZOQO O O °° N _ N � U — ,c m Ch cT 7 OO d E N .- N CO d to Co Co CA ` r N M [t O O X N X Ul) N 0 . - — —- r- c- a- c- .- CU N N N N N N Q cli U N a Iv N 0 M_ U U .E p 'C CO O O O Cfl Cfl CO CO CD Q Cp f0 O CO CO CO a CL C° ` coo 1 N c LO N n t co cc E E m L V C.) cu It Z L' C ° CD N � d J O CZ ° L 3 U) U) O lC') cfl M CD O Cl) CO cr ai N O O co CO N N Lo O O 07 co O N co M w). lC7 M O N Cfl � lt7 ai 0 Cp `- M M i 0— O O M C) CO N M r 00 C-- O Cn CO O Oi O a0 M 0 r 00 t* N N O Cn M CO 00 M ►� � O M C' — CA d N CA 00 o0 cD CO N 0 C� � N — M�� M N c! Cn N O co O O 0 N N N � a0 Lo N 0 0 0 � y C O U O O C O E O CU > a) � O c 0 cr M l(i �- u O M CA I CM COO � co CCU --t CC) 0 Cn i, J t0 w V � Cp c`! � i M i N > � Q > O O U a) Ca C J U Q COO Q r N W M U) 0 co Co cu I-F I" E N O C O ` a C C a ^ Cn O L O C N •-' CL _y C .-c E Q E ` O O U •-• p Q <n ns 3 c o r O C � CO C a � O U CLO to U c a) E O d a a) j Mn C U cep U) CO d C Co C Z p U C co (n U (/� Oa C O O T C f° v 0) c *' yr o U c a) c m rn V ° c o a a j a) ° > a� N m a a° a) a a) a) 0) O vi � U) a c c`a o ° c p > 0 a a o .� co cu Q LD Z a) U U �>— Ca c°n 0 0 co U cn 0+ C o ° cn 7 d Q � L � V 13 a O c `- a) o cn a� H O O U o 0 co Q a U E E a a U a O UN N N n c o L a A LL 0) m � ° °S�a i OZOQO O °° _ N U — ,c m p C cT 7 OO d E N .- N CO d to Co Co CA ` r N M [t O Co ;� N 0 . - — —- r- c- a- c- .- CU N N N N N N N N Iv N 0 M_ U U .E p 'C CO O O O Cfl Cfl CO CO CD Q Cp f0 O CO CO CO CO CO 1 N c n t co cc E E Z L' C ° CD d J O CZ ° U) U °E ° p U 0 c C o N LO co CCU --t CC) 0 Cn i, J t0 w V � Cp c`! � i M i N > � Q U N >- LL Ca C J U Q COO Q r N W M U) 0 co w .R r 611 F- -------------------- Co CD p O> r X X X X X X X X X X M X X X X X M X X .O y pOp C r= cu EMA d Z U) M O O N to 0 N cm .� N 0 �, t0 CO (7 1 z W =3 O co °) XX XXX p 1 M�� XXX ti XXX 1 N i co N r+ X CO) M�� M M M N C a) L M Co aD � LL 00 Cl T ti N N C O °o 1` O Q a XXX Q O O X X N M >CXXXX 9 > ti Eii X X M co a"i N XX p O >+ J r O M CO) CO N N O N T- a pp LL O M 00 40 tey LO VZ co p XXXXXX LO XXX XXX ti X>CXXX ti X XX p� CL Q) (6 4ow � O m N 40 44 W >. r O F- O O t0 V N O O LL oo N N O J C r= cu 00 qt O M U w 0 N cm .� N 0 �, t0 CO (7 1 z W =3 O co °) XX XXX p 1 M�� XXX ti XXX 1 N i co N r+ X CO) M�� M M XX owt N C a) L M l0 y L � LL T ti N N e- Q a Q 9 > Eii Q p O >+ J r O M CO) CO N N O N Q a pp M tey LO VZ co p XXXXXX LO XXX XXX ti X>CXXX ti X XX p� m Z Q) (6 4ow � O m N 40 44 Q N a0 r N ti� O m O C) M CD O O IA (O ti M 1 O r- O O O CD ti t-MON CO <O tf) w rn a0 M 00 M v_ rn LO N O ql N a0 Os O I� M N c0 O OD O O ti( ri N� a r� Lf) ao to a aCi C)i 10 Ln ( O M d O O a0 w T- ti N N O N r n cv CA Cn N N CM LO N d M c0 O M N t0 } N t00 N r(D N N N N CO O� N� N t C-4 co- N ti 1n r M Q QCA 00 M � C o N N UO _ N Q 0 � a) Q > CA O C Q m • a) U ? :• L O +' O CA C LL C2O rM . a C a O o N a) C O a O 0 o C Q a - Y :N ? W a c 2 o c ca Q 0. O F_ cm N c a) a C � c C N � V N c cn U >+ Q) O > 0 0 LO O (0 C `C C N p c c C c a� 0 o > L .ca H 'a �p C a) (n o U C C M a3 O C y Q c c V .� O a) O ` o c C O L c a) ` °� O O V O O Q O .- d cn a) o as a c` a� >, v can a) a c } Z m >, o E a o Cl m o O E o 0 w cwa � v) LL Q = a ti CC rn� a� a� a�'i o voi a� c a o c m o �, (D a o c v a) CA M (n j> >co O C R v> fL O a) U co C C CO c cu N y a) W v C a) a) E N U m N C C a) 0 +) a) D + � O � � U cc � c0 � O V CO g N 'c � L (tea N O m N� a) O R o y N (v r O L (LC cn :. d m o a) rn c +-' > U 75 ccc c a� w L a) p Q L L N M> = m Q 5 cc U as a a ++ 5 o CA N O a3 Ur d j N co r C (6 5 O a3 N 7 7 cr O N N N> O CT t0 O to U cc c a a) O cl >O E> E N c C a) O N> r d r �- 2 U� d Q u) N N N V U � Q .O 2 w :-, > L 3 L O a) O L � F- �, __ `t L Y _ N a) + O a) O L U t0 c O cc> C O c "�' j O N N F- O O J> (A O LL O O J LL D O O U w 0 t N 0 �, i N (7 1 i 1 M�� 1 N i co N r+ i M N (M M�� M M M N C a) (M � l0 y L lf) LL c N N N N Q 9 Q p O J O M O " O N tey 1617 At 4, • . N a C 0 N U) a� ZT m N C d 0 0 LL LL in x x CO) le to co rn x x M W) � r U1 x x M .o m a M > V? io m a O O O U O coo 0 N � ui U N N LO O N O `O N LO r o o o M Lo 0 v o O V v o N M rn� CO `n 0 0 o co M N 0 (1) a In M Cl) 00 00 L' N n CO co O Z O Iq '7 d' M O 4 'T — ^ Co I*- O) O M O OD � N N M 0 h N f� h 00 It 00 Ln O 00 O Lo r �? O LO LO Co It L'? V a) h O N N M '-t N � 7 O r r-- C;) CO) j 1t N ^ f- M r- O N M .-- LO N M L-- N N ti L Ln a N (0 N aS OD N t N m L r M g U) c c CD E C O O a> CC U CD p O N co U c O O co CD (D c °� L (D LO LO m C Lt_ E N m o CD Q 0 Q Q 2 CL a Q U N co a O 03 cco r O c Q c V d o Q S E (n U > on 3 L E r c 0 (� a) y� 2 c c U) o o 0 0 3 > C1 7 N 2 Q U co m U) D ° v� o :+ c 0 � U) ° a m .� > E n a > U o Z E a� 'c `- a� a) > o �- � Y n o ° L I— O C f0 c Q 2 U U) U O O Q ° v, c '> (a U Q a 'Q C c fl 7 N U (o N 7 O U c a � y a) N N~ O to ? C 03 X N to N O = E c� E a E v, c E° .� m0 x LU �QLLa` =c�0 °w� U Q a Q o ai U z m 0 Q O 0 o _0 3 ° m +r U v d � , N M Nt Ln CD I- 00 0) to r- N M � Ln (D 1- 00 Li C >c O o p� '� (D (D CD CD CD CD CD CO CD Q (O CO CD CO CO CO C, CG � i N s a c E E m m v° iq U) y,r i i cn 'y N N M d LO 0 � •ri+ N c � c Lo L(7 U.) In (fl CO (6 T Q CD m O Q J c co (6 N CO • . N a C 0 N U) a� ZT m N C d 0 0 LL LL in 16 1 LO co fA co M co m E C; (o C o X X X X X X X X X X � X X X X X X X 4 Z fA N LO N V► M ww c O ti N � O ti co M o c XX XXX N N X X ; XXXXX p XX t0 _0 CD "- LL O r 40 69 >, O) to to pl- CD 4. (a �M�, XX XXX M � XXX CA � XXX X M x LO � D O CD � M M N 4 fR CA M co O O Q d 00 � N (` p XXXXXX ~ XXX XXX M XXXXX m X XX to m Z CD r Q N 14 LO 00 ' 44 O44.). T- 40. Q O N m N O M O M O O I- N o M r- O O N N N O r- M O O O N CO M O V c� cc Iq cn(o O— �' "' ONO u-) O r o t1 ti N QOf M M CEO' r O _ Q ti O M r v M O (fl OO N N r- co <o 1 M'IT M O LO ti (O M CO M N It O O O Ln 00 (D O 'IT O O aO LO M (0 J J} w O N co (k 0) ---* m nj O (p M Lo M L) ' a 't LO N O N N O I*- N M (0 N CD Q J Cy CO I�i O cl 00 N C4 t_ N Lf) N (O � O (6 } U O � tf) (D (fl N 4F? N �_ LL p Q N a) Z > to N Q c � Q V V V ` 0 C O L C (a Q U ca E f. C7 _ o c O U) rn a) O d O C Y U L W cn c g c o CD o> o c (a v 4. F— c c� a) a co o `o a m a o o 0 0 c Q ca c ( Q c C i O c c a>i J U >+ O O > O p O R c 't E CD N �' = (a c c "O c' c C c a) N > E m ;_ ca rn (a E � o o U c O a m m o Q c ca .. o o 0 o c ac) �) a� Q Z a rn a c v n fa c d c °� m ° e o w N E a o c cn CL E o a N (a � E o ` W ca Q p) 7 N m � a) U c O aa)) 7 o N a 0 c d v ° v c d U 2 30 rn c ca rn t' f o U (a y o o 0� ca c o c U rn o _ to o c L_ (tea n a) c O p O 0 NN C �� N ca E c O c O � Ca c >>�6 0 y Ca '65 U >> >�a O 2 a) t"A +O- N = 0) +. N j U C 5 O d w i N M Q a) G '� N co to o U .m C �- N fl. a) O O a) Ur O N •- V (d (a N 6 O N N N � O O U (n 0, U Q ca Q) � E E a) d V .- ca .V C t d Q N N N 0 N '- ,a to �_ > ` 7 O o t .. y Cn 0 w c (a � � L- ca > c O C (a N D F- O o .� lA O U- O c co J> >O LL 5 0 O U w O r M� �- (D r N M q D) N N N co N N 0 N co N L- Cf) N M co M I M L1') M 3 1 N• n N 3 r- a ° J ° O O O p le O LO r N @7 a� Cn m o_ c 0 D) E 3 a� 'D 7 CD :4 c H N 0 0 N i Ll. D LLL. U) T 6U1' AS L co a 4) cc C U a .LD C (C Q O C •CM L m O m co i= O N I C C O an.JO 1 1 1 1 N CO 'It (f) ll') LA Lo C LL E N 40 Al) a v cc Q U cn CU x Q X C C° O v E O a 0 3 C/) Q 14 .. Q C c �C L- oCO U V O N O C N A O N c c N co 3 0 CL CL N O N O le a- Q 7 N> a) U . O cn +. cu 7 > Q 0 Q 7 (A 'S O .S � p O U O cn D ++ c 7 fA �. E O ti L cB m _cu 2 L U o�_U_2cm ti _'NL�a oO m °" E 0 m E E E Q ti U Q E O � c N X e N w "O N o 2 a O c :S E a) E Q m w+ 0, w C7 a LL a= U O (j w Q Q U z 0 Q X X > I i i i i i i i i i i I i i X N M N LO Cfl r-- 00 a) to �- N Ch 'It 0 Cfl L` oO cu E • M N N N N N N N N N 01 .0 6 CO CO Cfl (O CO CO CO CO 7 Cfl Cfl CO V- 6 6 c0 6 Z - Q 61% R cn N O Q CO U af O V N O Cl? CO CO c0 Cfl 00 N X X O t0 r N CA N Lf) x x 0 t0 01 r IA 00 M O CO C' (fl O O O CO C rl- N O Cl) a (O M N M r N � O CO C) L,- CO O O O sh 'It N It M V O M O eo (O N N M M (D h rl Cl! 0 a co t, r n M r� N M r N (0 (o M (D N O O O O Ch 00 N (O O N. N 0 n O O O C m O M (o O u) N r- O (O o O Iz- (Ci m O O M N O O O I,- ' M d O t0 M Ln t9 N co N N a N T O w W C 3 r' v EA � c 0 0 m c > U L _ � L co a 4) cc C U a .LD C (C Q O C •CM L m O m co i= O N I C C O an.JO 1 1 1 1 N CO 'It (f) ll') LA Lo 0 0 V1 � 7 C U (0 to (0 m M L v U U C c 0 LL 0 y C U -0 U) c O C .y N 7 C Q N d C 0 � U J C N M 00 0) d rn N a c O .y .y 7 Ln N m N > C F- O O N LL LL LL U) C LL E Al) a cc Q U cn CU Q C O O v E O a 0 3 C/) Q .. Q C c �C L- oCO U V --o��° O N O C N A O N c c N co 3 0 CL CL N O N O Q a- Q 7 N> a) U . O cn +. cu 7 > Q 0 Q 7 (A 'S O .S � p O U O cn D ++ c 7 fA �. E O L cB m _cu 2 L U o�_U_2cm _'NL�a oO m °" E 0 m E E E Q C U Q E O � c N X e N w "O N o 2 a O c :S E a) E Q m w+ 0, w C7 a LL a= U O (j w Q Q U z 0 Q 0 �j > I i i i i i i i i i i I i i X N M d; LO Cfl r-- 00 a) to �- N Ch 'It 0 Cfl L` oO cu E • N N N N N N N N N 01 .0 6 CO CO Cfl (O CO CO CO CO 7 Cfl Cfl CO 6 6 6 c0 6 Z - Q R cn N Q U af O V N Cl? CO CO c0 Cfl N O t0 0 0 V1 � 7 C U (0 to (0 m M L v U U C c 0 LL 0 y C U -0 U) c O C .y N 7 C Q N d C 0 � U J C N M 00 0) d rn N a c O .y .y 7 Ln N m N > C F- O O N LL LL LL U) w N a w IL w °a m Z� 00 I— O Oa J N J w ao J aW 0 CZ C 0 a O N 0 0 LL N o 0 o Q o C ° O d Fo N 0 y U CO a a) O .' cn E � a) g A O C Q a fC +. L :- U rD > w w e p> O CL p I3 > Q O > as N a a) > U M A2 O O O U >, m 0 > O° w O O U YO N O 'E -o cC C_ a) N a) O U C o co ca o c c ° a>i 3 m c E: v c O► >1 Cn U J c (D FL Z = E °°-.. °� aNi a a u°) a o Co o ° `�' w CC.) Q lC p� 7 N ` 'd O a) 7 O U L d d ° O U 7 a, °U) o ° va�IX cn� a�a ° �, c a L CO w -o cu m •E U r°n c c a>i a; m a`� p0` � = tcv ° vOi n Z m c m c L m v_� a� O O° >co cv as n U g o o c3 L 2 O f9 .� is "= s> O a) a) c N °� c N a� () ai 7 IL N co Q 0 7 j N M >O p U G a 0 >>-' >� p� f°/J ar O y U m n V O N N N> O rn U ns U) 0 O E> E O d r r r V> d N N N O U a) Q a) > 0 c ` L C a) L a) O O a3 a) = a) C ° ` -_ to N fA � 0 O n N U L_ C m L_ U L <C O >O U> O O c (4 N° F- O (n O LL 0 c _`� > LL S 0 o U w 0 4) = O O N M w N M t N M M CM - v !b �� a N N N [04 N N 2 O h Iq 0 O G O - O r N M rn rn a� m m a c O E v m C a) H O 0 N } LL w LL U) t[) M M O O co N N M (n � � M M M E9 N N f fA O r r co 4 40 Z ° ° °� e� V V ° c � � e c o c oo X X M M X X LL O M M r r d C >1 c co M M O O � � / CD co O co O N o X 0 X X c coo_ � �( c coo X X o X It N N t tOR m t tN w o o a 7 N N t x X t0 L X < LO X �° x <°c X v w O O O O O O O O w w 0 0 0 0 C Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w O O"t O O m m u u M M O O O O O O M M O O O O QO O P� I O m m O O L LO � M o � C CO r r r r I Ii? w 0 r r N N N N O O c co N N N Nt o o O O ti t ti � � O O C CO O O M M � � c c0 J Q O N N C Cy t ti � � C CO O O M M N N t t0 C CO U N N N N O Nfl� N N I IA N U N cm c � U U U U Al- Q A co U U 0 0 rn rn a� m m a c O E v m C a) H O 0 N } LL w LL U) oMMLMJ ca Q m C_ cu Ucn cu Q O O C CU Q O N y C O m cu o a' a 0 N M 'IT (1) U') cc') ui LO N co O N T T u ti Q: rn ti 0) co 14 Lo M co le ti? m O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O Q) o � to 0; O o N C6 to `O O N to N Gift c N co O N T T u ti Q: rn ti 0) co 14 Lo M co le ti? m O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O Q) o � to 0; O o N C6 to `O O N to N m T U Q O _O N cc (0 a. c 0 m � c LL E `m C Q cu a U c N L Q C_ O U E N wc v —voi U °c v� > o o- co J a`� c O Q U) O c c N w\ 7 0 CL O O Q Q C. :t-- Q .0 7 o N> 0 +� V y 7 � � 0 a :3 7 c� co '� a L Q m U L <L •� U: U L a � c O L VJ Q CT \ O N C. N U r _ (0 X N N O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 O m 0wC7_ =QLL a2U0L)LU 2000 U E' > , , , , , , , , , \ , , , , , , , , ca e-- N co "T U) (0 f'- 00 0) ` T N M ,t c0 to f� 00 N T 7 7 7 7 O N N N N N N N N to 0 .c (0 co CD CD (D co co CD CD j C M c E O Cn N 2 Q U , , w 1 0 , AW V T N C7 ,I: to 3 O m T U Q O _O N cc (0 a. D W N O IL 02 a� �O O QIL mZ_ O~ O QO ON w J M Q U) LU 0 Q w G W Z cQ W G U) Z w o W w w aIL 00 O r 0 LL. 1611 0 m a a O .y y E C0 d a m c m H 0 0 } LL LL LL M CD 40 CD a3 E N N O x X X o0 c X co �' z cn Q N 44 CD Co Q o 40W 61). 404 404 015 0 _O LL `O a 044 10A o00 4°4 t�0 �3 r- X x m X 64 C3 44 ti C oLno w 0- to to � Q O M P C; cn X XX LO X O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q CO M N 00 Q N 't 't oc O o) oc M r O I-- fl- N Co O >- N M r r N O O 444 J co 00 M M V O 44 N LL 0) C cn O O U) a) > () U rn Q cn a) > c C o c) c"j �a3Q U j 0_ �E c) O ` 0 p d N 'y +. a) O c C N N cA c c g c O .. c cn Q E Q ca :_ to � U d a) > w cn as o >o > O Y v n3 H rn m > a as c cn n a) E a) > c 3: Q ccv Q cn .2 U c O c c> i m c E aEi a cca ccv (D a, 3 c Cl. c M U) 6 v co = d °d o O L O 3 4. E _ a) cn °D C a) co E o O C w o Q e=v rn� E a��i o a�'i a m O O O O = ate) c °-0 M o co c cC C W C m to a) O O —ca CU w a j O = E U o O tv .L-. O co v`ni O a) o N= rn m U m ` Q. r N Ch Q � O � r N M O 0 U: 'S co •+>—.. = a) p) N O H r r r L a) ++ Q• 0 O O N N N> >> O w U cp to a a) 0 0 00 E U 0 V y U) N N N O U a) Q a) j O E> c cu E U m _ O O _� 0 U L_ c Co L U L 10 C U 0 C CO > L N m o a O O cn O LL. O C J> >O IL s O O U w 0 L r N M y •t r N M 14: U? CO r N M LO r N M"T m r N N N N N N 4) q- d' 4 R ty tm 3 a o w o 0 0 0 0 0 r N M 4 0 m a a O .y y E C0 d a m c m H 0 0 } LL LL LL M C*, X J ƒ > � ) � } � o ) 6 � & m o 0 0\ CC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 & D C $ o \ / O ƒ k Q _ e c \ f V) $ / ) 2 § E / ( ) k \ § § ƒ J $ \ \ 7 / ¥ L E a « \ E (D e % I i « f 2 2 k c$ o §/ m k °\ @ c • CL c < - a /t / / - \ / \ $ t § � o 75 / t > i k c° S Q m U 2 c k$/ e t o 0° a & 2: � c c Q m = o @» o o\ k k = j $ t m, c/ 3 J° ' 8 2 2 2 > O OL a =� @ Q) a a < f E ® m Q 2 °@ o ® 2 c m / 2 m• ■ CL o E W' ° g m e= @§ @ >$ m J O q@ 2 ƒ/@ c k'$' k o o - _ c % < ) = o @ m - @ E a� C J o ¥ ° : / g « c c e 5 o E E° °� � I m 0 3 E� m x■� o° o § x k k k f$ 2- § k \ o f L o_< a I U 3 0] [ f -j M f / ' ' ' ' , , , , , / f f / f f / � ) 2 2 2 2 E■ m 5@ #@@ b@ o e- q m ¥@ o& m k 2` c o 5 @ § _ _ _ � w 2 � @ @ q q & @ & m e cc 2 . g% / &ƒ a 5 6 a a e 6 6 o c o e o 5 m ° - / 8 2 2/, m$ ^ � 0 E $ t { p / a s// 2 f 3 ƒ f§ o / r , v r , , \ \ 3 CY) e a n a >- A m £ e a) LL \ -0 k g ) CO 3: Cl) 2 2 $ @ / I 1611 A �. V. SOURCES AND USES OF STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDS State Sources - $118.6 million Alligator Alley Toll Revenue: Based on the Everglades Forever Act, the District is authorized to receive and spend excess funds from the Alligator Alley toll revenues. $2.0 million in new revenue is anticipated from this source for FY2011. These funds are specified, by law, to be used for Everglades and Florida Bay restoration. These funds will be devoted to the projects included in the FY2010 proposed budget for both the Everglades Construction Project and Florida Bay. Exotic /Aquatic Plant Control: The District anticipates receiving a total of $3.4 million in revenue for exotic and aquatic plant management efforts. Primarily, funding for this program is passed to the District through DEP. The ultimate source of DEP's funding includes: state gas tax, of which a percentage is allocated based on motor boat fuel sales; recreation and commercial boat tax; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (federal); and any mid -year re- appropriations from DEP. Florida Forever: The District anticipates receiving $1.6 million of the state's FY2011 appropriation of Florida Forever funds. The funds will be used for land acquisition for Kissimmee River restoration. Grants and Cooperative Agreements: Each year, the District applies for and receives grants from a variety of different state sources. In the proposed FY2011 budget, state grants and / or cooperative agreements total approximately $0.3 million, from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for Three Lakes Wildlife Management. Special Legislative Appropriations: The District did not receive any new special legislative appropriations for FY2011. Accordingly, the District's FY2011 budget is only $0.8 million, which consists of prior year balances from the Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund and Lake Okeechobee Fast Track (LOFT) grant. The funds will be used for Alternative Water Supply and water quality projects. The LOFT portion will be used for Lakeside Ranch construction. Save Our Everglades Trust Fund ( SOETF): The District anticipates $103.6 million from the SOETF for FY2011, and consists of $47 million in new funding and the remainder from prior year balances. The funds will be used primarily for construction of Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands, C -111 Spreader Canal CERP project, Lakeside Ranch Phase 1, C -44 Reservoir /STA project, and Indian River Lagoon -South construction. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 103 161 1AJ Water Management Lands Trust Fund (WMLTF): Revenue from documentary stamp tax revenues in the amount of $6.9 million is being budgeted for the payment of debt service on land acquisition bonds. Federal Sources - $0.1 million Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): The District anticipates receiving $86,825 from FEMA for FY2011. The funds will be used for flood mapping projects in Highlands and Polk counties. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 104 { LO CIS Is cc 0 rn a. i U tOn 69 6�3 E� 6� CA Es9 O ' N o oc O T O N LLI r pp M M O M c N g� LL O y O N �O 1 a N LL Y M N M O O �- e Z LL � ds ' W on rn c a N r r LL! LL o o Z Q 3 8 8 8 8 a 8 8 Cl) E O r v'i N O N N po p M M LL v°�, W !¢ N 6 d, � c 0 N Z Q -0 U w o �, CD Co con � w b o F- W F ri a. per, 3 CD Y b w w w� o o p w s o° 0 3 ;� w° Con z A O M M M 7 N Ls+ [l ., M Y N O w �---1 un O � iYi o� bA as a N 00 •- � N 00 00 N 00 00 es9 M O°O Kn n-r L: M N N M N N M M 0N 0 00 C14 00 00 00 N 0an 0 W " 69 Gos fii 69 fs4 00 6f) m� G) "C CJ. w Q E � A Q ►3 .Q •O N N Q C9 � � Frs o G1-i N If Q � Z (V _O •---, Z Gw f x c� M M M .�.�.,� ;� O ONO N ONO N M en M N O � iYi o� bA as a N 00 •- � N 00 00 N 00 00 es9 M O°O Kn n-r L: M N N M N N M M 0N 0 00 C14 00 00 00 N 0an 0 W " 69 Gos fii 69 fs4 00 6f) G) "C CJ. w Q � os A Q ►3 .Q •O N N Q C9 G1-i N If Q � Z (V _O •---, Z Gw 1610h,.t ;1 Al 0 N c f0 a C O .N An E m rn m C H Q 0 U- U) O \ O O \ O \ \ O \ \ \ \ \ O \ \ \° O O a) (V O N O O O CO O (O 00 O co N li 00 CD G cl 0 0 0 0 � 0 O � M O M O O O r 0 r M M O O O O X 0 0 C; r r r o V 0 e o� O O 0 0 O M O M O O O M O CV) m O 0 C p 0 0 0 OU O C N i L CY) O d N M O M O O O M O M CV) 0 U M O M N N O N 00 M M V- O CO N N U C O co r r c0 r r C r_ N N C N O N I� O f� N O N (gyp 0 tl- r M 0 r f— O I, rt 00 co O 00 CO (0 E 00 M M cfl O N N O) O 0000 v Co r r O O r c O N N y O N� O r O r N O N r N O r O O M M 0 ti O N N o0 M dN' M 00 r— N N cM M C Op cn L N N O 00 JN O co O a0 O O O o0 O 00 N O N O r— M O M (0 O ti O M M � r w CO N N M M CD 000 I- oo r 000 r V) J0 N N N O It O In O LO r 0 r O O O N co O co M O M 0 M 0 0 M Z O co co M M N N LO CO CO r- LL LL cbmti� Q o°oo N N N `D y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O 0 N LL O V) N O O LC) N O "T O O� O n O h � O"T — O r O O r O ce) O M to O to I� O r O r N 0 co d 0 �p O O 00 � O '� O r r N LO O N � O � O O � L O to O co O 0) 00 co V- M co r C C Cl) E O O �— L 3 C CU O C N J N J `�' O W c L O W C= N L J W co C �— L J W L O J W C N E cLo aciLZ O�z (1) Z �� z io0Z' ca0z �0z co0z �o�Z �Oz a0z >�O > UO > �O Ica) >_ •: O ? •� U Co O 07 � :O O/� En � L N ca L cn cu " can/ L.1.. Y Ci r C W W C W L W c w W w p p a c W °' 0a W °'Cjo- 00 a �VaVa o EVJ a', O E VJ o vyi °E E U J C 7 J U O O LL O W O LL O O N ~ LL ~ W 0 0 N 0) q N 7 C -O U) CO O N N V U) > .>> R O a — ° x d 3 C Cf C .O -O R '� Y O v C R me C U) F- O �Uo N �� r0-+ M. = a0i C d N O L- 0 c Y N c o 7 �+ O� 1C C 3 C) rL 3 d o CI - N U W} O =o a°� dcc 0) p =� N�o co a a d ca ,� Q �a N 0 c �Q U) 'A . 161 Al VII. PERFORMANCE MEASURES Since February 2001, the five water management districts (districts), the Executive Office of the Governor (EOG), and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) have been engaged in an effort to develop efficiency measures for water management. This report represents a summary of the measures and the values for those measures in FY2007, FY2008 and FY2009 for the SFWMD. These core budget performance measures (BPMs) are organized by the statutorily required programs through which the districts report budgetary information to EOG, DEP, and the Legislature. These categories are: ❖ Water Resources Planning and Monitoring ❖ Acquisition, Restoration and Public Works ❖ Operation and Maintenance of Lands and Works ❖ Regulation ❖ Outreach ❖ District Management and Administration Care should be taken by the reader when reviewing these measures to avoid comparisons with other water management districts and state agencies whose services are somewhat similar, but not identical. For instance, land management costs for a parcel with limited public use cannot be accurately compared to management costs for a state park with many annual visitors. Likewise, making comparisons district to district as to the cost for removal of exotic plants when certain species require greater time and financial resources for removal than others would not be meaningful. Those involved in creating these measures believe the best use is primarily to look at the efficiency of a single district over time. Other uses, such as comparing one district to another without qualification, or recommending outsourcing of a service based only on these measures, is not advisable. It is important to recognize the inherent difficulty in quantifying and valuing environmental quality (in essence, attempting full cost accounting for environmental factors), especially in terms of the effects of preventive programs. For example, public land acquisition may preserve recharge areas and endangered plants / animals, while also precluding development that might lead to flooding or degradation of water quality. In such cases, land acquisition is considered a desirable end and a "surrogate" measure for efficiency is used (purchase price as a percentage of appraised value). Since we often lack accepted "benchmarks" for water management services, the trend over time will serve as the basis for comparisons of relative efficiency. Finally, any performance measurement system must recognize there are influences and issues beyond the districts' control, and achieving progress in water resource management involves working with other governmental and non - governmental partners. The efficiency of enhancing water supplies, for example, is dependent on close coordination between the districts and local suppliers. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 108 1611A1 4 Reporting the Measures During the BPM process, discussion of several measures (Cost per sampling event; Cost per acre restored; Cost for invasive exotics control, etc.) revealed the significance of clearly stating the assumptions for what is, and is not, included in any given measure. This should make us as consistent as possible, but each district will still need to make use of explanatory text in the depiction of each measure to clarify how it applies to the specific aspects of their operation. The following fourteen BPMs were jointly developed by the five water management districts: 1.0 WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MONITORING Water Supply planning cost per capita (district wide population) Cost of minimum flows / levels per acre (lakes), stream mile, and spring • Cost per sampling event for water resources monitoring 2.0 ACQUISITION, RESTORATION AND PUBLIC WORKS Land Acquisition purchase price as a percent of appraised value Cost per million gallons a day (MGD) for Water Resource Development • Cost per acre restored 3.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDS AND WORKS Total land management costs per acre Cost per square foot of district facilities maintained Cost per acre of water bodies managed under maintenance control (invasive aquatic plants) Cost per acre treated for terrestrial invasive exotics 4.0 REGULATION • Cost per permit processed by type (CUP, ERP and Well Construction) • Average number of days to act upon a permit once application is complete 5.0 OUTREACH • Cost per district resident for Out 6.0 DISTRICT MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION • District management and administration percent of total budget Page 109 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission "A PRaO AM 1.0+ WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MONITORING ACTIVITY 1.1.1 Water Supply Planning BPM: Water supply planning cost per capita Intent of the BPM: To identify the investment per resident for water supply planning to aid timely, efficient provision of current and future supplies. Background: The SFWMD has completed four regional water supply plans that cumulatively cover the entire District area. These plans identify alternative water supply sources and strategies, with associated costs, that can be implemented to meet projected 2025 water supply needs without resulting in unacceptable impacts to wetlands, spring flow, ground water quality, or existing legal users. FY2007 Water Supply Planning Cost = $8,657,534 FY2007 District Population = 7,858,268 Water Supply Planning Cost Per Capita = $1.1 FY2008 Water Supply Planning Cost = $7,924,258 FY2008 District Population = 7,678,964 Water Supply Planning Cost Per Capita = $1.03 FY2009 Water Supply Planning Cost = $6,019,473 FY2009 District Population = 7,626,212 Water Supply Planning Cost Per Capita = $0.79 Water supply planning cost per capita $2.00 $1.50 $1.10 $1.03 $1.00 $0.50 AV $0.00 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008 -09 Interpretation: The population numbers are based on the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) Census Estimate, and represents permanent resident population (i.e., seasonal residents and tourists are not included). SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 110 ACTIVITY 1.1.2 Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs): The estlibmintIf Alm surface and ground water levels and surface water flow conditions required to protect water resources from significant harm, as determined by the District governing board. BPM: Cost of minimum flows and levels per lake acre, stream mile, and spring Intent of the BIRK To identify how efficiently MFLs are being established. Background: Minimum levels for lakes and aquifers; flows and levels for rivers; and flows for springs are being established by the District to protect aquifers, wetlands, water bodies, and water courses from significant harm caused by permitted water withdrawals or diversions. Each district uses a Minimum Flow and Levels Priority List and Schedule, which is annually updated, to identify water bodies scheduled for MFL establishment. Priorities for establishment are determined by regional significance and probability of significant impacts from consumptive use. Since the District began establishing MFLs in 2001, protective criteria have been adopted for almost 4.5 million areas of freshwater ecosystems, including the Everglades and Lake Okeechobee, 100 miles of river and estuarine systems, and more than 140,000 acres of lagoon habitat. In 2004 and 2005 no MFLs were established. In 2006, MFL criteria were established for Lake Istokpoga, a 44 square mile lake in a watershed of 921 square miles. In 2007, MFL criteria were established for Florida Bay, a 143,360 acre ecosystem which largely lies within Everglades National Park. This reflects a cost of $6.90 per acre. In 2008 no MFLs were established. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 111 160 1 A 1 ACTIVITY 1.2 Research, Data Collection Analysis and Monitoring: Activities that support district water management planning, restoration, and preservation efforts, including water quality monitoring, data collection and evaluation, and research. BPM: Cost per sampling event for water resources monitoring and lab analysis Intent of the BPM: To measure the efficient collection of information that is vital to effective water resource management. Background: Hydrologic, meteorological, and water quality data are collected by various divisions of the District. Data are used for mandate and permit compliance, district wide water quality status and trends assessments, water supply planning, development of flood assessments and plans, and other restoration program planning and tracking. Data collection occurs on a contracted basis as well as using District staff, while some information comes from remotely operated systems (e.g., stream flows, water levels, rainfall totals, etc.). Water Quality FY2007 Number of Surface Water Sample Events = 27,626 FY2007 Total Cost = $11,387,665 FY2007 Cost Per Sampling Event = $412.21 FY2008 Number of Surface Water Sample Events = 28,934 FY2008 Total Cost = $10,606,912 FY2008 Cost Per Sampling Event = $366.59 FY2009 Number of Surface Water Sample Events = 28,428 FY2009 Total Cost = $11,796,074 FY2009 Cost Per Sampling Event= $414.95 $500.00 $400.00 $300.00 $200.00 $100.00 $0.00 Average cost per sampling event: Water Quality 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008 -09 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 112 Hydrologic Data Collection FY2007 Number of Hydrologic Data Sample Events = 16,110 FY2007 Total Cost = $4,562,930 FY2007 Cost Per Sampling Event = $283.23 FY2008 Number of Hydrologic Data Sample Events = 15,123 FY2008 Total Cost = $3,529,634 FY2008 Cost Per Sampling Event = $233.40 FY2009 Number of Hydrologic Data Sample Events = 14,424 FY2009 Total Cost = $3,633,278 FY2009 Cost Per Sampling Event = $251.89 Average cost per sampling event: Hydrologic Data Collection $400.00 $300.00 $200.00 $100.00 $0.00 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008 -09 1 Al ` a Interpretation: Water Quality Sampling Site Visits - The unit costs include salaries, capital equipment purchased, maintenance of lab and field instrumentation, operating expenses (vehicle and boat maintenance, helicopter rental) and contractual costs for sample collection and /or lab analysis. The unit costs are an overall average for sample collection, analysis (Lab and QA/QC) and actually cover a wide range of costs depending on factors such as: 1) Mode of transportation used for sample collection - includes car, boat, airboat and helicopters. Some of the district's monitoring sites are accessible only by a helicopter or an airboat which significantly increases the cost of sampling compared to vehicular travel. 2) Number of and type of parameters analyzed by lab - many of the district's sample collection activities are in response to legal mandates that require for site - specific parameters. For example, some sites may only require total phosphorus while others would require a full suite of about 40 parameters. This lab costs also range from low cost ( <$10) parameters such as basic physical parameters or nutrients to more expensive organic parameters ( >$700). This wide variability in the number and cost of lab analysis can therefore significantly affect the unit cost. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 113 16111 ' 3 _ Al The use of in-house resources as well as contracts for sample collection (surface water, soil, sediment, groundwater, and fish tissue) or lab analysis. Included in the unit costs are field sampling or lab activities that fall into one of the following categories: • Samples collected and analyzed with in -house resources; • Sample collected with in -house resources but contracted out to a consultant lab; • Samples collected by contractor but analyzed by in -house lab; and • Samples collected and analyzed through contractual services. 4) The matrices sampled include surface water, groundwater, soil and biological tissue. The unit costs for water quality collection consolidate all these different matrices. There is a significant difference, however in the amount of time and costs associated with collecting and analyzing each matrix. FY2007, FY2008, and FY2009 ACTUAL: 1) The actual site visits included all sampling trips; separate QA/QC trips, such as round robin sampling were not included; audit trips were not included; and maintenance trips were not included. 2) Water Quality Analysis Division (WQAD) and Water Quality Monitoring Division (WQMD): a. # samples: Surface Water, Groundwater, Sediment, and Fish Tissue i. Used total number of sampling site visits provided by Field Project Managers b. Costs: i. Used the total actual costs for WQAD and WQMD 3) Total unit cost for Department a. Used the formula: Unit costs = E(WQAD + WQMD) / # site visits Hydrologic Data The unit costs include total personal services (salaries plus benefits), capital equipment purchased, including vehicles and computers, replacement equipment for hydrologic monitoring devices (data loggers, sensors, and components), and contractual costs for data collection / maintenance services. The calculated average salary cost for data collection per site includes data collection / quality control maintenance, repair, and troubleshooting. Total cost = The number of data collection sites x the calculated average salary cost • capital equipment purchased • contractual costs SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 114 2 161). A S. For this exercise, a hydrologic data sample event is defined as one of two scenarios: 1) A physical trip made by staff to a manually operated monitoring site to download data from the data logging / recording equipment. In this case the sample event is actually the collection of the continuous data set that has been being recorded into the data logger / recording system since the last visit. The frequency of the data point records depends on the type of instrumentation, and the field parameter(s) being measured. It may be breakpoint — instantaneous record, or an average of a 5 — 15 minute interval. A physical trip made by staff to a remotely operated monitoring site to perform a current field measurement of the parameters (water levels, gate positions, pump operation, etc.) being recorded at the site. In this case the sample event is actually the verification of the health of the data points that have been transmitted via remote communication since the last visit. These data points are transmitted either as "real- time ", at will (when requested from the operations control room), or nightly through an automated collection procedure. As noted above, the frequency of the data point records depend on instrumentation type, and field parameter(s) being measured. A field recording device will have from 1 to multiple sensors (typically 10 max. parameters monitored for hydrologic purposes). SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 115 16 PROGRAM 2.0 0 ACQUISITION, RESTORATION AND PUBLIC WORKS ACTIVITY 2.1 Land Acquisition: The acquisition of land and Mobilities for the protection and management of water resources. This measure includes land acquisition components of "water resource development projects," "surface water projects," or "other cooperative projects." BPM: Land purchase price as a percentage of appraised value Intent of BPM: To identify how efficient the public land buying process is relative to appraised value of properties acquired. Background: The SFWMD acquires, manages, and disposes of land in order to achieve the District's objectives. These objectives cut across the spectrum of the four District areas or responsibility (AORs) of water supply, flood protection, water quality and natural systems. In FY2007 the SFWMD purchased 5,383 acres of land that had a cumulative appraised value of $67,764,575. The SFWMD actually paid $74,634,932 for these lands, or 110 percent of the cumulative appraised value. In FY2008 the SFWMD acquired 22,796 acres of land, of which 15,051 acres were acquired through donation, exchange, or mitigation. The remaining 7,745 acres of land had a cumulative appraised value of $158,719,835. The SFWMD actually paid $190,544,968 for these lands, or 120 percent of the cumulative appraised value. In FY2009, the SFWMD acquired 173 acres of land, of which 86 acres were purchased and 87 acres were acquired through donation, exchange, and off -site mitigation. The cumulative appraised value for 60 acres of acquisitions finalized in FY2009 totaled $4,503,618. The SFWMD actually paid $4,513,200 for these acres, or slight more than cumulative appraised value (approximately 100 percent of the appraised value). Land purchase price as % of appraised value 125% 100% 75 50% 25% 0% 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008 -09 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 116 Interpretation: In those projects cost - shared with the Federal Government, Public Law 91 -646, as amended, requires that the District's initial offer to purchase land must be at least the amount of the appraisal. As local sponsor, the District is required to comply with the act which states that: "In no event shall such amount (the amount established as just compensation by the acquiring agency) be less than the agency's approved appraisal of the fair market value of such property." SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 117 ACTIVITY 2.2 Water Source Development: 16 1" f A p Water resource development projects and regional or local water supply development assistance projects designed to increase the availability of water supplies for consumptive use; also other water resource development activities not necessarily contained in regional water supply plans but which provide water supply benefits. BPM: Cost per million -gallons a da MGD for Water Resource Develo ment Intent of BPM: To identify the efficiency of developing new water supplies. One of the District's areas of responsibility is Water Supply, and one of the objectives for water supply is to "Maintain and increase available water supplies, and maximize overall water use efficiency, to meet existing and future needs." One strategy to achieve that objective is for the District to develop and implement regional water supply plans. Regional water supply plans identify present demands and supplies, project demands 20 years into the future, and apply those projected demands to the known available supplies. In areas where the projected demands exceed presently available supplies (a negative environmental water supply impact will result). The water supply plan - in its Water Resource Development Component — must address this negative impact by identifying additional water resource development projects to meet the projected demands. The Regional Water Resource Development Component contains a description of projects the District is going to cost share in order to make additional quantities of water available over the life cycle of the plan. Each year the District summarizes its water resource development activities planned for the subsequent five - year period in the Proposed Five -Year Water Resource Development Work Program. Additionally, Section 373.1961 F.S. encourages the water management districts to fund the development of alternative water supplies in their annual budgets, which are defined as "supplies of water that have been reclaimed after one or more public supply, municipal, industrial, commercial, or agricultural uses, or the supplies of storm water, or brackish or salt water, that have been treated in accordance with applicable rules and standards sufficient to supply the intended use." Water Resource Development Projects 1. Water Conservation (A) MOBILE IRRIGATION LABS FY2007: Eight Mobile Irrigation Labs funded by SFWMD contracts plus purchase agreements for evaluations with five labs provided urban and agricultural irrigation system evaluations in 12 of the Districts 16 counties. Recommendation resulted in a projected total potential water savings of 2.2 mgd at a cost to the District of $602.925 or $274,057/mgd. FY2008: Ten Mobile Irrigation agreements for evaluations irrigation system evaluations i n SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Labs funded by SFWMD contracts plus purchase with two labs provided urban and agricultural 12 of the Districts 16 counties. Recommendation Page 118 11 16 mof J al A t1he resulted in a projected total potential water savings 9 District of $749,520 or $189,752/mgd. FY_ 9: Four Mobile Irrigation Labs funded by SFWMD contracts provided agricultural irrigation system evaluations in 12 of the Districts 16 counties. Recommendation resulted in a projected total potential water savings of 4.47 mgd at a cost to the District of $292,000 or $65,324/mgd. (B) WATER SAVINGS INCENTIVE PROGRAM Under the Water Savings Incentive Program, or WaterSlP, the District co -funds non - capital improvement program, water - saving technology projects to promote water conservation. Examples have been indoor plumbing retrofits, large -area irrigation controls, soil moisture technology and rain shut -off devices for irrigation systems. FY20O7: Fourteen projects save aproved for gallons funding ally District enompletedf $533,218. These projects will FY20O8: Fourteen projects Save approved for on gallons aingually wDenrcompletedf $400,000. These projects will FY2O09: Forty -four projects were approved for funding at a District cost of $1,028,669. These projects will save 550 million gallons annually when completed. 2. Ground Water Resources A contract was awarded for a feasibility analysis and master plan for the construction and operation of a Regional Irrigation Distribution System (RIDS) in coastal Lee and Collier counties. The system, once constructed will enable water to be transferred from areas of surplus to areas of deficit to fulfill urban irrigation needs. FY20O5: The RIDS program was Fort MFersOCentralhwat $500,000 level. This t plant amount was distributed as follows: Y expansion design received $100,000; Fort Myers reclaimed water interconnect pipeline received $200,000; Collier County ASR pilot project design received $100,000; and Collier County reclaimed water main extension received $100,000. FY2006: The RIDS projects became part of the Alternative Water Supply (AWS) Funding Program in FY2006. Water Supply Development Assistance Alternative Water Supply (AWS) Funding Program Page 119 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Funding ram is a Distrilskoishare The Alternative Water Supply g Pro g program for capital projects developing non - traditional or alternative water supplies such as water reuse, reverse osmosis, and aquifer storage and recovery. FY2007: The SFWMD funded 62 AWS projects at a total State /District cost of $41.9 million. Projected capacity of the projects yields 63 mgd, or $665,079/mgd in State /District investment. FY2008: The SFWMD funded 73 AWS projects at a total State /District cost of $45.9 million. Projected capacity of the projects yields 65 mgd, or $706,153/mgd in State /District investment. FY2009: The SFWMD funded 38 AWS projects at a total State /District cost of $27.5 million. Projected capacity of the projects yields 27 mgd, or $1,018,519/mgd in State /District investment. Interpretation: The nature of water source development is such that it often takes several years of effort and funds before water source development projects come on line. Costs on an annual basis are frequently associated with projects that do not yield additional water supply in that fiscal year. These are one -time District expenditures yielding daily benefits for decades to come. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 120 1611 ' ACTIVITY 2.'3 Surface Water Protects: Those projects that restore or pro ect surface water quality, flood protection, or surface water - related resources through the acquisition and improvement of land, construction of public works, and other activities. BPM: Cost per acre restored Intent of BPM: To identify how efficiently land restoration is being achieved. Background: The Kissimmee watershed is the headwaters of the Kissimmee - Okeechobee- Everglades system and the single largest source of surface water draining into Lake Okeechobee. The primary goal of the Kissimmee River Restoration Project is to reestablish the ecological integrity of the river - floodplain system. The South Florida Water Management District and the USACE split the cost of the project. Restoration of ecological integrity requires reconstruction of the physical form of the river (i.e., canal backfilling, removal of water control structures, and elimination of secondary drainage ditches, levees, and roads) that is performed by the USACE and reestablishment of appropriate hydrologic characteristics to the river and associated floodplain through implementation of the Headwaters Revitalization Schedule and the preferred alternative resulting from the Kissimmee Basin Modeling and Operations Study. The District is responsible for real estate acquisition and restoration evaluation. The first of four phases of river restoration filled over seven miles of the C -38 canal and reconnected 15 miles of river channel, and was completed in 2001. The second phase (IV -A) was completed in October 2007, backfilled an 1.9 miles of the C -38 canal, and reestablished an additional 4 miles of contiguous river channel. The third phase (IV -B) was initiated in June 2008 and was completed in January 2010, one year ahead of the scheduled January 2011 completion date. Phase IV -B backfilled 3.9 miles of C -38 canal, reestablished approximately 6 more miles of river channel, bringing the total miles of contiguously restored river channel to approximately 25 miles. Due to federal budget constraints, completion of project construction and implementation of the Final Headwaters Revitalization Schedule is now scheduled for 2014, with restoration evaluation continuing through 2019. Land Acquisition FY2007 581 1 $11,191,165 $19,261.91 FY2008 207.72 $3,735,582 $17,985.04 FY2009 3.35 $115,3501 $34,432.84 Restoration Proiects FY2001 I Completion of phase 1 9,506 FY2007 I Completion of phase IVA 1.352 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 121 Average cost per acre of land restored $40000 , $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 1611 Al 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008 -09 Interpretation: There is a wide range in the per acre costs for restoration based on the type of restoration and condition of the acreage in question. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 122 1611 "'A I PROGRAM 3.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDS AND WORKS ACTIVITY 3.1 Land Management: (Save Our Rivers / P2000 / Florida Forever) - Maintenance, custodial, and restoration efforts for lands acquired through Save Our Rivers, Preservation, other land acquisition programs. BPM: Total land management costs per acre Intent of BPM: To measure how efficiently district -owned lands are being managed. Background: The District has acquired over 550,000 acres to help protect and restore critical water resources and to provide land for water resource management projects such as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project. Within the District, there are two distinct land management programs; Land Stewardship and Interim Land Management. The Land Stewardship program applies to about 350,000 acres of conservation lands. The program includes invasive exotic control, prescribed fire, mechanical vegetative control, hydrologic restoration, boundary fencing and posting, law enforcement services and public use. The public use program includes limited facilities such as trails, trailheads and primitive campgrounds. The Stewardship program relies heavily on partnerships with state agencies, local government and private contractors and lessees to implement its land management strategy. The Interim Land Management program applies to about 200,000 acres and is designed to manage land acquired for water resource management projects between the time of purchase and the initiation of the construction project, which will convert the land into the intended final use. The program's mission is to secure the lands, provide basic maintenance functions and eliminate exotic vegetation. FY2007 Acreage Owned = 528,016 FY2007 Management Cost = $13,325,704 FY2007 Land Management Cost Per Acre = $25.24 FY2008 Acreage Owned = 541,450 FY2008 Management Cost = $11,565,717 FY2008 Land Management Cost Per Acre = $21.36 FY2009 Acreage Owned = 539,097 FY2009 Management Cost = $13,882,622 FY2009 Land Management Cost Per Acre = $25.75 Page 123 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 {~ S, Average cost per acre of land managed 1611- Al 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008 -09 Interpretation: The data are actual acres owned and actual cost to manage. The average cost per acre of the District's management program is a good program indicator, but the cost for any particular property can vary greatly due to factors such as size, location, habitat type and condition, time of ownership and intensity of public use. Substantial increase in cost per acre are primarily due to factors such as increased effort to control exotics especially on interim lands, construction of restoration projects, increases in cost of security services and salaries of additional staff assigned to land management functions. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 124 ACTIVITY 3.3' r FACILITIES BPM• Cost per square foot of district facilities maintained 1611'A1 Intent of the BPM: To assess the ongoing costs of operation and maintenance of the District's office and support facilities in order to achieve optimal efficiency. Background: The total cost for the operation and maintenance of District support and administrative facilities is divided by the total square footage of District buildings maintained to develop this measure. This is ongoing maintenance only, and should not be confused with costs that are reported under 2.5 Facilities Construction and Major Renovation. $12 $11 $10 $9 $8 FY2007 Square Footage Owned = 377,820 FY2007 Maintenance Cost Per Square Foot = $10.22 FY2008 Square Footage Owned = 354,068 FY2008 Maintenance Cost = $3,326,518 FY2008 Maintenance Cost Per Square Foot = $9.39 FY2009 Square Footage Owned = 354,068 FY2009 Maintenance Cost = $3,698,904 FY2009 Maintenance Cost Per Square Foot = $10.45 Average cost per square foot of district facilities maintained 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008 -09 Interpretation: Square footage was adjusted to reflect correction for Ft. Myers Service Center facility. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 125 r .; J � . 4 161A 1 ACTIVITY 3.4 INVASIVE PLANT CONTROL BPM: Cost per acre of water bodies managed under maintenance control (invasive aquatic plants) Intent of the BPM: To measure how efficiently invasive aquatic plants are being managed. Background: This measure is calculated by dividing the cost (includes contractors and in -house costs) for all aquatic plant control activities on publicly accessible natural waters by the total number of acres considered under maintenance control. Maintenance control is defined as the point at which all plants in a water body have been treated and are on a schedule for retreatment and regular monitoring. FY2007 Acres Treated = approximately 39,142 FY2007 Cost = $11,115,521 FY2007 Cost = $284 /acre FY2008 Acres Treated = approximately 54,530 acres FY2008 Cost = $9,864,252 FY2008 Cost = $180.89 /acre FY2009 Acres Treated = approximately 42,494 FY2009 Cost = $7,313,023 FY2009 Cost = $172.10/acr $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $0 Cost per acre of water bodies treated for invasive aquatic plants 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008 -09 Interpretation: The cost of controlling aquatic plants is highly dependent on the species that the District is attempting to control. As plants are added to the management list, total costs for all acres will increase. Conversely, if the funding source decreases, then the District's total cost per acre will decrease — this does not mean that the District will have improved efficiency, just that less funds are spent to manage those plants. A special caution is given against comparisons with other districts, as the invasive species problem is significantly worse in South Florida, and includes different species than the other districts. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 126 1611 Q 1 ACTIVITY 3.4 INVASIVE PLANT CONTROL BPM: Cost per acre treated for terrestrial invasive exotics Intent of the BPM: To measure how efficiently invasive terrestrial plants are being managed. Background: This measure is calculated by dividing the number of acres treated for terrestrial invasive exotics into the total cost (includes contractors and in -house costs) of such treatment. All costs, including labor, materials and supplies, should be reflected. Where applicable, the per acre .cost done in -house should be compared to work being performed for the District by a private or other contractor. FY2007 Acres Treated = approximately 87,514 FY2007 Total Cost = $8,929,395 FY2007 Cost = $102 /acre FY2008 Acres Treated = approximately 58,955 acres FY2008 Total Cost = $10,686,273 FY2008 Cost = $181.26/acre FY2009 Acres Treated = approximately 47,457 FY2009 Total Cost = $12,835,978 FY2009 Cost = $270.48 /acre $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $0 Cost per acre treated for terrestrial invasive exotics 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008 -09 Interpretation: The cost of controlling terrestrial invasive plants is highly dependent on the species that the District is attempting to control. As plants are added to the management list, total costs for all acres will increase. Conversely, if the funding source decreases, then the District's total costs per acre will decrease — this does not mean that the District will have improved efficiency, just that less funds are spent to manage those plants. A special caution is given against comparisons with other districts, as the invasive species problem is significantly worse in South Florida, and includes different species than the other districts. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 127 0 PROGRAM 4.0 REGULATION ACTIVITY 4.1; 4.2; and 4.3 Permitting 161 IF, � A 1 BPM: Cost per permit processed by type (CUP ERP and Well Construction) Intent of the BPM: To identify the efficiency and relative cost of permit processing, recognizing that the Districts do not control the timing or quality of permit applications —only the processing of those applications. Background: This measure is calculated by simply dividing the total amount expended in each permitting program by the number of permits processed for the fiscal year. All three types of permits (Water (Consumptive) Use (CUP), Water Well, and Environmental Resource /Surface Water (ERP)) are shown as separate components of the measure. FY2007 Water (Consumptive) Use CUP $5,060,508 3806 $1,330 Water Well Construction $82,897 149 $556 Environmental Resources $11,054,456 2229 $4,959 FY2008 Water (Consumptive)Use $5,218,942 3037 $1,718 CUP Water Well Construction $82,897 92 $901 Environmental Resource $12,515,959 1673 $7,481 FY2009 Water (Consumptive)Use $5,543,288 2638 $2,101 CUP Water Well Construction $82,897 179 $463 Environmental Resource $12,918,967 1423 $9,079 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 128 .. 0 Average cost per permit processed by $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 permit type 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008 -09 ® ERP W WWC ■ CUP 1611 A I 4" Interpretation: This measure is calculated by simply dividing the total amount spent under to each permitting program by the number of permits processed. The cost figures are directly related to the complexity of the permit applications received, i.e., lower -cost Water Well Construction Permits are reviewed more quickly and with less cost than Environmental Resource Permits. Many factors influence the cost of permit processing. Some factors can be tracked and accounted for, such as the cost of staff time for review; other factors such as the quality of materials submitted by the applicant cannot. A single or a few highly complex permit applications can skew or inflate the results of this measure by consuming a disproportionate share of staff time and district resources. Conversely, a series of smaller, less complex permit applications that take a minimum of staff time to process can skew the results of this measure in the other direction. Projects in areas with a complex hydrology or with critical water resource problems require much more scrutiny than projects in less complex settings. Care must be taken to explain and understand anomalies that may occur in reporting on this measure, and in regional differences throughout the state. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 129 ACTIVITY 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 Permitting 1611 Al ' BPM: Average number of days to act upon a permit once application is complete Intent of the BPM: Indicate the relative efficiency of permit review and issuance, recognizing that the Districts do not control the timing or quality of permit applications —only the processing of those applications. Background: This measure reflects how long, on average, it takes the district staff to issue permits once all required materials are submitted. The measure is to be applied to all three major permit types as separate components. Average Number of Days to Issue a Permit after Legal Completion FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Interpretation: The District seeks to thoroughly review all permits as expeditiously as possible. This measure reflects how long, on average, it takes District staff to issue permits once all required materials are submitted. As with the cost - per - permit measure described above, there is a direct relationship between the complexity of the activity being permitted and the time required for adequate review. Simple projects are permitted quickly, while large or particularly complex permits take longer. This measure includes permits that are issued by staff as well as those issued by the Governing Board during public hearings, and as such, require additional time for processing. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 130 lk f PROGRAM 5.0 ACTIVITY: All OUTREACH BPM: Cost per district resident for Outreach 1614` Al Intent of the BPM: To efficiently inform and motivate as many citizens as possible while providing accurate, useful information. Background: The total cost for all outreach activities is divided by the permanent resident population of the District. The 2000 Census results for population applied to the previously available district breakout percentages for partial counties where needed. FY2007 Total outreach activities = $5,966,922 FY2007 Total SFWMD residents = 7,617,705 Cost per district resident for Outreach = $0.78 FY2008 Total outreach activities = $6,159,416 FY2008 Total SFWMD residents = 7,678,964 Cost per district resident for Outreach = $0.80 FY2009 Total outreach activities = $6,616,054 FY2009 Total SFWMD residents = 7,626,212 Cost per district resident for Outreach = $0.87 Cost per district resident for outreach $1.00 $0.80 $0.60 $0.40 $0.20 $0.00 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008 -09 Interpretation: The population numbers are based on the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) Census Estimate, and represents permanent resident population (i.e., seasonal residents and tourists are not included). The costs are those associated with the SFWMD activity codes that make up State Reporting Activity 5.0 Outreach. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 131 6 16 11 A .0 DISTRICT MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION BPM: District management and administration percent of total budget Intent of BPM: To indicate the management and administrative overhead costs relative to the District's overall expenditure. Background: The total Management and Administration activity costs are represented as a percentage of the total. 15% 10% 5% 0% FY2007 Management and Administration cost = $91,810,082 FY2007 Total Expenditures = $930,400,028 FY2007 Management and Administration = 9.9 percent FY2008 Management and Administration cost = $88,794,238 FY2008 Total Expenditure = $965,167,811 FY2008 Management and Administration = 9.2 percent FY2009 Management and Administration cost = $83,266,900 FY2009 Total Expenditures = $604,528,530 FY2009 Management and Administration = 13.8 percent District management and administration cost as a percentage of total district expenditures 2006 -07 2007 -08 2008 -09 Interpretation: The costs are those associated with the District activity codes that make up State Reporting Activity 6.0 District Management and Administration. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 132 16 I!1 Al VIII. BASIN BUDGET Big Cypress Basin Budget — FY2008 -2009 through FY2010 -2011 Basin Background The Florida State Legislature enacted the Water Resources Act in 1972 which divided the state into five regional districts defined along natural river basin boundaries. This Act (Chapter 373) also greatly expanded the responsibilities of the districts. Further definition of water management roles were established as a result of a legislative amendment resulting in the establishment of two basin boards within the newly named South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The basins were named the Okeechobee Basin and the Big Cypress Basin. The Big Cypress Basin includes all of Collier and mainland Monroe counties, the Big Cypress National Preserve and the 10,000 Islands. Property owners within the Big Cypress Basin will be assessed the millage rate of .2265 mills and the District -at -large tax rate of .2549 mills — for a combined tax assessment of .4814 mills. The proposed millage rates are the same as FY2010. Final millage rates and budget for the proposed FY2011 Big Cypress Basin budget will be approved by the Basin Board in August and adopted by the District Board on September 21, 2010. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 133 THREE YEAR EXPENDITURE SUMMARY BY PROGRAM Big Cypress Basin PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES (Actual Year 2008 -2009 (Actual Audited) Fiscal Year 2009 -2010 (Current Amended) Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 (PROPOSED) Change in $ from FY09 /10 to 10111 % of change from FY09 /10 to 10111 1.0 Water Resources Planning and Monitoring 5,610,338 4,250,792 4,387,236 136,444 3.2% l 1.1 District Water Management Planning 5,385,968 4,163,642 4,197,401 33,759 0.8% 1.1.1 Water Supply Planning 3 1 ; 1.1.2 Minimum Flows and Levels r i 1. 1.3 Other Water Resources Planning 5,385,968 4,163,642 4,197,401 33,759 0.8% 1.2 - Research, Data Collection, Analysis and Monitoring 224,370 87,150 189,835 102,685 117.8% 1.3 - Technical Assistance - 1.4 - Other Water Resources Planning and Monitoring ActiNties - 2.0 Acquisition, Restoration and Public Works 3,226,727 4,587,991 5,733,071 1,145,080 25.0% 2.1 - Land Acquisition - 2.2 - Water Source Development 1,691,427 1,412,958 2,657,086 1,244,128 88.1% i 2.2.1 Water Resource Development Projects l l 2.2.2 Water Supply Development Assistance 1,691,427 1,412,958 2,657,086 1,244,128 88.1% j 2.2.3 Other Water Source Development ActiNties 2.3 - Surface Water Projects 1,424,247 3,077,133 2,973,040 (104,093) -3.4% i 2.4 - Other Cooperative Projects 111,052 97,900 102,945 5,045 5.2% 2.5 - Facilities Construction and Major Renovations 2.6 - Other Acquisition and Restoration ActiNties - 3.0 Operation and Maintenance of Lands and Works 7,468,349 9,769,008 8,366,058 (1,402,950) - 14.4°/ I 3.1 - Land Management 1 92 i 3.2 - Works 6,759,706 8,910,879 7,570,103 (1,340,776) -15.0% 3.3 - Facilities 264,455 247,800 139,550 (108,250) -43.7% 3.4 - Invasive Plant Control 344,450 521,780 531,533 9,753 1.9% I 3.5 - Other Operation and Maintenance Activities 'I 99,646 88,549 124,872 36,323 41.0% 4.0 Regulation 21,298 101,430 45,218 (56,212) - 55.47/ 4.1 - Consumptive Use Permitting 4.2 - Water Well Construction Permitting and Contractor Licensin - i 4.3 - EnNronmental Resource and Surface Water Permitting i 21,238 80,000 25,000 (55,000) -68.8% i 4.4 - Other Regulatory and Enforcement ActiNties 60 21,430 20,218 (1,212) -5.7% SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 134 EAR EXPENDITURE SUMMARY BY PROG lti. A 1 THREE Y ) Big Cypress Basin PROGRAMS AND ACTNITIES Fiscal Year 2008 -2009 (Actual Audited) Fiscal Year 2009.2010 (Current Amended) Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 (PROPOSE)) Change in $ from FY09110 to 10111 % of change from FY09110 to 10111 5.0 Outreach 205,097 237,873 256,712 18,839 7.9% 5.1- Water Resource Education - 5.2 - Public Information 205,097 237,873 256,712 18,839 7.9% 5.3 - Public Relations 5.4 - Lobbying I Legislative Affairs 1 Cabinet Affairs 5.5 - Other Outreach Activities SLEITOTAL -Major Programs (excluding Management and Administration) 16,531,809 18,947,094 18,788,295 (158,799) -0.8% 6.0 District Management and Administration 520,296 947,233 866,038 (81,195) 4.61A 6.1- Administrative and Operations Support 225,058 191,562 129,268 (62,294) - 32.51/6 6.1.1- Executive Direction ! 6.1.2 - General Counsel I Legal 500 (500) - 100.0% 6.1.3 - Inspector General ' i 6.1.4 - Administrative Support 225,058 191,062 128,768 (62,294) - 32.6% 6.1.5 - Fleet Services 500 500 6.1.6 - Procurement I Contract Administration 6.1.7 - Human Resources 6.1.8 - Communications 6.1.9 - Other 6.2 - Computers I Computer Support 6.2.1- Executive Direction 6.2.2 - Administrative Services 6.2.3 - Application Development 6.2.4 - Computer Operations 6.2.5 - Network Support 6.2.6 Desk Top Support 6.2.7 - Asset Acquisition j 6.2.8 - Other 6.3 - Resenes - 303,090 284,189 (18,901) -6.2% 6.4 - Other (Tax Collector I Property Appraiser Fees) i 295,238 452,581 452,581 0.0% TOTAL 17,052,105 1 191894,327 191654,333 (139,994) •1.2 °/ SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 135 1 I THREE -YEAR REVENUE, EXPENDITURE, AND PERSONNEL TABLE Big Cypress Basin AD VALOREM TAX COMPARISON BIG CYPRESS BASIN FISCAL YEAR 2008 -2009 FISCAL YEAR 2009.2010 FISCAL YEAR 2010 -2011 Difference in $ from FY09110 to 10111 %of Change from FY09110 to 10111 Millage Rate 0.2265 0.2265 0.2265 Rolled -Back Rate 0.2436 0.2571 0.2604 Percent Change from Rolled -Back Rate -7.02% - 11.90% - 13.02% Current Year Gross Taxable Value for Operating Purposes $79,234,012,657 $70,534,827,823 $61,916,380,309 ($8,618,447,514) -12.2% Current Year Net New Taxable Value $2,424,151,595 $1,185,165,778 $996,859,145 ($188,306,633) -15.9% Current Year Adjusted Taxable Value $76,809,861,062 $69,349,662,045 $60,919,521,164 ($8,430,140,881) -12.2% REVENUES FY 200812009 (Actual Audited) FY 200912010 (Curets Affaded) FY 201012011 (PROPOSED) Difference in $ (FY09110 -- FY10111 % of Change (FY09110 -- FY'0111) Non - dedicated Revenues Carryover - - - - - Ad Valorem Taxes - Permit & License Fees - Local Revenues - - - - - State General Revenue - Miscellaneous Revenues - Non- dedicated Revenues Subtotal - - - - Dedicated Revenues Carryover - 3,855,743 5,880,356 2,024,613 52.53/6 Ad Valorem Taxes 17,205,604 7 15,4116,974 l 13,392,977 ! (2,023,997)] -13.1% Permit & License Fees i 11,450 19,000 i 19,000 - 0.0% Local Revenues - - - - - Ag Privilege Tax - Ecosystem Management Trust Fund - - - - FDEPIEPC Gardinier Trust Fund - FDOTIMitigation - Water Management Lands Trust Fund Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund - Florida Forever - - - - - State General Revenue - Other State Revenue - Alligator Alley Tolls Federal Revenues - Miscellaneous Revenues 847,575 1 602,610 362,000 (240,610); - 39.9% Dedicated Revenues Subtotal 18,064,629 19,894,327 19,654,333E (239,994)` -1.2% TOTAL REVENUES' 18,064,629 1 19,894,327 19,654,333 i; (239,994); -1.2% SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 136 16101 Al THREE -YEAR REVENUE, EXPENDITURE, AND PERSONNEL TABLE (cont'd.) Big Cypress Basin SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 137 FY 2008/2009 (Actual Audited) FY 200912010 (Current Amended) FY 2010/2011 (PROPOSED) Difference in $ (FY0911D .. FY10111) ( II % of Change (FY0911D— FY10111) EXPENDITURES Salaries and Benefits 1 1,975,6131 2,026,112 ( 2,097,0531 70,941 ' 3.5% Other Personal Services 377,770 577,290 1,216,065 638,775 110.7% Operating Expenses 3,645,6921 5,180,929 1 3,946,415 (1,234,514) -23.8% Operating Capital Outlay 102,417 130,000 1,309,000 1,179,000 l 906.9% Fixed Capital Outlay 21475,394 4,930,295 3,960,000 (970,295) - 19.7% Interagency Expenditures E 8,475,220 6,344,000 6,439,000 95,0001 1.5% Debt Reserves - 705,701 686,800 (18,901) -2.7% TOTAL EXPENDFURES 17,052,105 19,894,327 19,654,333 (239,994)1 -1.2% PERSONNEL Full -time Equivalents 281 24 251 1 2.1% Contract /Other - - - - 28 24 25 1 2.110 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 137 APPENDIX A Other Fund Balances 16 i A 1 The District maintains reserves and designated balances that are set -aside to fund future year expenditures and have been disclosed as part of the District's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), dated September 30, 2009. The following reserves are presently maintained by the District: Reserved for Encumbrances ($77.6 million): This amount represents contractually obligated encumbered funds across all fund types (general, special revenue, and capital). Encumbrances are not included in the budget reported in this document. Reserved for Land Acquisition & Mitigation ($26.7 million): This reserve represents funds set -aside to acquire, restore, and manage wetlands. They are accounted for in a separate and distinct "Wetland Mitigation Fund" which is legally required based on District regulatory permit conditions. $10,262,096 of these reserves is placed in the Wetlands Mitigation Permanent Fund for long -term management. Designated for Economic Stabilization Reserve ($25.6 million): This economic stabilization reserve represents ad valorem funding set aside to address unforeseen emergencies and to offset unexpected downturn in revenues. In the event of a major emergency or economic downturn, sufficient levels of reserves can ensure continued orderly operation and tax structure stability. The presence of such a reserve also enhances the District's fiscal integrity and credit rating, which minimize borrowing costs. For more information regarding these reserves, please refer to the "Notes to the Financial Statements" included as part of the District's September 30, 2009 CAFR. Updated figures will be reported in the September 30, 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. A copy may be obtained by contacting the District. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 138 F APPENDIX B 16Ifl 1� � Al *1 I Alternative Water Supply Funding — Water Protection and Sustainability Program On January 14, 2010, the SFWMD Governing Board approved $190,500 for one project, Miramar, and certified forward two projects, Hialeah and Doral, from FY2009. These projects will provide 12.5 mgd of AWS capacity when completed. The deadline for completing the new project is August 31, 2010. The certified forward projects will be completed before or by August 31, 2011. Status of FY2010 Funded Projects 1 of the 3 projects, City of Miramar, is on schedule for completion by August 31, 2010. 2 of the 3 projects, City of Hialeah and the City of Doral, are scheduled for completion before or by August 31, 2011. Other than Big Cypress Basin and prior years appropriated funds, $450,000 is allocated funding for alternative water supply projects in the proposed FY2011 budget. FY 2011 Funding FY09 R/B AWS match $195,550 AWS $450,000 Miami /Dade AWS $1,000,000 Big Cypress Basin $2,600,000 District Total $4,245,550 AWS North Miami $250,000 State Total 1 $250,000 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 139 APPENDIX C X611 Al TERMS Acceler8: Part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), Acceler8 accelerates eight restoration projects through the district's issuance of "Certificates of Participation" bond revenue for construction finance. Accretion: Accretion is the growth or increase in size caused by gradual external addition, fusion or inclusion. Accrual: Accrual is a method of accounting in which revenues are recorded when measurable (known) and earned, and expenses are recognized when goods or services are used. This method is not limited to a time period. Acre -Foot: The volume of water (43,560 cubic feet or 1,233.4 cubic meters) that will cover an area of one acre to a depth of one foot. Adopted Budget: The financial plan of revenues and expenditures for a fiscal year as approved by the governing board of a water management district. The adopted budget is approved by the governing board at the Final Public Hearing, normally held during the last week of September. Ad Valorem Tax: A tax imposed on the value of real and tangible personal property as certified by the property appraiser in each county. This is commonly referred to as "property tax ". Advanced Treatment Technologies (ATT): Advanced Treatment Technologies is a research program that identifies water - quality treatment technologies that meet the long -term water quality standards for the Everglades. These technologies range from low maintenance constructed wetlands to full chemical treatment for the removal of phosphorus. Agricultural Privilege Tax: A non -ad valorem tax imposed, pursuant to section 373.4592(6), for the privilege of conducting an agricultural trade or business on real property that is located within the Everglades Agricultural Area. Alternative Water Sources: Includes, but is not limited to, conservation, reuse, aquifer storage and recovery, surface water storage, and desalination (also known as non- traditional sources). Alternate Water Supply (AWS): The Alternative Water Supply project searches for new methods to meet the demands for water. These include aquifer storage and recovery, and wastewater reuse techniques. Amendment: A change to an adopted budget. It can increase or decrease a fund total. Appraisal: An estimate of value, as for sale, assessment, or taxation; valuation. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 140 i 1611 1 Appropriation: A legislative act authorizing the expenditure of a designated amount o public funds for a specific purpose. An appropriation is usually limited in amount and as to the time when it may be expended. Aquifer: An underground bed or layer of earth, gravel or porous stone that yields water. Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR): The practice of storing water in aquifers in times of abundant rainfall and withdrawing it to meet emergency or long -term water - demands. Areas of Responsibility (AOR): The four areas of responsibility which must be addressed by each water management district's District Water Management Plan: water supply, water quality, flood protection, and natural systems. Assessed Property Values /Assessed Valuation: A value established by the property appraiser in each county for real and personal property. It is used as a basis for levying ad valorem property taxes. Assets: Items of ownership convertible into cash; total resources of a person or business, as cash, notes and accounts receivable, securities, inventories, goodwill, fixtures, machinery, or real estate. Audit: An official examination and verification of financial accounts and records. Automated Remote Data Acquisition System (ARDAS): Used to model instrument performance with synthetic samples of known concentrations. The information obtained is used to determine unknown sample concentrations. Back Pumping: The process of pumping water in a manner in which the water is returned to its source. Balanced Budget: A budget in which the expenditures incurred during a given period are matched by revenues. Baseline Data: Data for each measure, used as the starting point for comparison. Basin (Groundwater): A hydrologic unit containing one large aquifer or several connecting and interconnecting aquifers. Basin (Surface Water): A tract of land drained by a surface water body or its tributaries. Basin Board: A governing board which has jurisdiction over an individual hydrologic subdistrict under the authority of a water management district's governing board. Members of basin boards are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. Berm: A shelf or flat strip of land adjacent to a canal. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 141 16111 ai Best Management Practices (BMPs): A practice or combination of practices determined, through research, field testing, and expert review, to be the most effective and practicable (including economic and technological considerations) on -site means of improving water quality in discharges. Bond: A security, usually long -term, representing money borrowed from the investing public. Borrow: In most cases, the material for construction of a levee is obtained by excavation immediately adjacent to the levee. The excavation is termed a borrow. When the borrow paralleling the levee is continuous and allows for conveyance of water, it is referred to as a borrow canal. For example, the canal adjacent to L -8 levee is called the L -8 borrow canal. Many borrow canals, such as the L -8 borrow canal, are important features of the project. Budget: A financial plan for the operation of a program or organization for a specified period of time (fiscal year) that matches anticipated revenues with proposed expenditures. Budget Hearing: The public hearing conducted by the governing board of a water management district to consider and adopt the annual budget. Budget Performance Measures (BPM): Accountability measures aimed at efficiency or producing desired results with minimum expense of energy, time, money, and materials. Canal: A human -made waterway that is used for draining or irrigating land or for navigation by boat. Capital Expenditures: Funds spent for the acquisition of a long -term asset. Capital Improvements Plan (CIP): A five -year plan for fixed capital outlay that identifies and controls district facilities improvements and land acquisitions, pursuant to the agency's goals. Capital Outlay: Purchases of fixed assets that have a value of $1,000 or more, and a useful life of more than one year. Capital Project: An individual facilities and /or land- acquisition fixed - capital project identified in the five -year Capital Improvements Plan. Carryover: Unexpended funds carried forward from the previous fiscal year(s). Central & Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study (C &SF RESTUDY): A five -year study effort that looked at modifying the current C &SF Project to restore the greater Everglades and South Florida ecosystem, while providing for the other water - related needs of the region. The study concluded with the Comprehensive Plan being presented to the Congress on July 1, 1999. The recommendations made within the Restudy, that is, structural and operational modifications to the C &SF Project, are being further refined and will be implemented in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 142 1611 Al Central & Southern Florida Flood Control Project (C &SF Project): A complete system of canals, storage areas and water control structures spanning the area from Lake Okeechobee to both the east and west coasts and from Orlando south to the Everglades. It was designed and constructed during the 1950s by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to provide flood control and improve navigation and recreation. Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP): The Coastal Impact Assistance Program uses federal appropriations allocated to the states to fund various projects in coastal areas. The funds allocated to Florida are administered by Florida Department of Environmental Protection program, and the program is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. Coastal Zone Management (CZM): Coastal Zone Management examines the causes of climate and related changes and their affects. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP): The framework and guide for the restoration, protection and preservation of the south Florida ecosystem. The CERP also provides for water - related needs of the region, such as water supply and flood protection. Comprehensive Watershed Management (CWM): An initiative established to improve the management of water and related natural resources within the district, which employs a watershed -based approach to resource management. Conservation and Recreation Lands Trust Fund (CARL): The state trust fund established by section 259.032, Florida Statutes, administered by the Department of Environmental Protection, to acquire natural areas for public ownership to maintain unique natural resources; protect air, land, and water quality; and provide lands for natural resource -based recreation. Consumptive Use Permitting (CUP): Consumptive Use Permitting regulates groundwater and surface water withdrawals by major users, such as water utilities, agricultural concerns, nurseries, golf courses, mining and other industrial users. Contingency Reserves: Contingency reserves are monies set aside, consistent with the District's policy, which can subsequently be appropriated to meet unexpected needs. Critical Restoration Projects (CRP): Critical Restoration Projects produce immediate and substantial ecosystem restoration, preservation and protection benefits, and are consistent with Federal programs, projects and activities. Culvert: A drain crossing under a road or railroad. Current Year Net New Taxable Value: Increases to the ad valorem tax base from new construction, plus additions of property to the tax roll minus deletions of property from the tax roll. Debt Per Capita: The amount of net tax - supported debt divided by the population, resulting in a dollar amount of debt per person. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 143 161 �1` A I r! Debt Service: Principal and interest payments on short- and long -term borrowings. Disbursement: Cash payment for goods or services procured by the district. Discretionary Funds: Revenues available for expenditures that are not statutorily or otherwise committed to a specific project. These funds are primarily ad valorem revenue. District Water Management Plan (DWMP): A plan prepared by a water management district that defines the district's role in water resource management and provides comprehensive long -range guidance for implementation of district responsibilities pursuant to section 373.036, Florida Statutes. Documentary Tax Stamp: An excise tax levied on mortgages recorded in Florida, real property interests, original issues of stock, bonds and debt issuances in Florida, and promissory notes or other written obligations to pay money. Dredging: To clear out with a dredge; remove sand, silt, mud, etc., from the bottom of. E- Permitting: An on -line alternative to permit application submission, queries and reporting. The district's functionality provided includes online Electronic Submittals, Application /Permit Search, Noticing Search, Subscriptions, Agency Comments and Additional Information. Ecosystem: Biological communities together with their environment, functioning as a unit. Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund: The state trust fund established by section 403.1651, Florida Statutes, administered by the Department of Environmental Protection, which supports the detailed planning and implementation of programs for the management and restoration of ecosystems, including development and implementation of Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) plans. Encumbrance: A commitment of appropriated funds to purchase an item or service. To encumber funds means to set aside or commit funds for a specified future expenditure. Encumbered Carryover: The amount of an appropriation that is still committed to purchase an item or services at the end of a fiscal year. These funds are added to the next fiscal year's budget, resulting in the Revised Budget. Enterprise Data Management Strategy (EDMS): A plan to provide the technology and infrastructure to facilitate integration of diverse system applications, and improve information flow throughout the organization. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): An analysis required by the national Environmental Policy Act for all major Federal actions, which evaluates the environmental risks of alternative actions. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 144 1 Al Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (EMA): The term that identifies long - range monitoring of networks to collect, analyze, interpret and disseminate scientific and legally defensible environmental data. Environmental Resource Permit (ERP): A permit issued by the district under authority of Chapter 40E -4, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), to ensure that land development projects do not cause adverse environmental, water quality and water quantity impacts. EOG Program Category: One of six budget- reporting program categories prescribed by statute and contained in the Executive Office of the Governor's standard budget reporting format for water management districts. Estuary: The part of the wide lower course of a river where its current is met by ocean tides or an arm of the sea at the lower end of a river where freshwater and saltwater meet. Evaporation: The process by which water is released into the atmosphere by evaporation from the water surface or movement from a vegetated surface (transpiration). Evapotranspiration: A combination of transpiration (vapor rising from the pores of plants) and evaporation from water and land surfaces. Everglades Long -Term Plan: The 2003 legislative session amended the 1994 EFA [s. 373.4592, F.S.] to implement the March 2003 Everglades Protection Area Tributary Basins Conceptual Plan for achieving Long -Term Water Quality Goals Final Report document, now known as the Everglades "Long -Term Plan ". (Committee substitute for Senate Bill No. 626 /Chapter 2003 -12, Laws of Florida) Exempt. Exemption. Non - Exempt: Amounts determined by State law to be deducted from the assessed value of property for tax purposes. Tax rates are applied to the balance, which is called the non - exempt portion of the assessment. A 1980 amendment to the Florida Constitution sets the exemptions for homesteads at $25,000, which means that an eligible homeowner with property assessed at $50,000 would have only to pay taxes on $25,000 of the assessment. Eligible homeowners must apply for the exemption by March 1 of each year. Other exemptions apply to agricultural land and property owned by widows, the blind and permanently disabled people who meet certain income criteria. Expenditure: The payment of cash or the transfer of property or services for the purpose of acquiring an asset, service or settling a loss. Expense: Charges incurred (whether paid immediately or unpaid) for operating, maintenance, interest or other charges. External Budget Amendment: A change to an adopted budget that has been approved by the governing board of a water management district which may increase or decrease the fund total. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 145 161 r A� Fees: A charge by government associated with providing a service, permitting an activity, or imposing a find or penalty. Major types of fees charged by the district include Consumptive Use Permits, Environmental Resource Permits, etc. Final Millage: The tax rate adopted in the final public hearing of a taxing authority. Fiscal Policy: The district's policies with respect to taxes, spending, and debt management as these relate to government services, programs, and capital investment. Fiscal policy provides an agreed -upon set of principles for the planning and programming or government budgets and their funding. Fiscal Year: A 12 -month period to which the annual operating budget applies and at the end of which a government determines its financial position and the results of its operations. The fiscal year for the water management district is October 1 through September 30. Fixed Assets: Assets of a long -term character that are intended to continue to be held or used, such as land, buildings, improvements other than buildings, machinery, and equipment. Fixed Capital Outlay: Payment for such items as lands and land improvements, land easements, water control structures, bridges, buildings and improvements, and leasehold improvements. Items have an estimated service life of at least one year. Floodplain: Land next to a stream or river that is flooded during high -water flow. Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.): The official compilation of the administrative rules and regulations of state agencies. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP): The district operates under the general supervisory authority of the FDEP, which includes budgetary oversight. Florida Forever (FF): The Florida Forever Act, section 259.105, Florida Statutes, enacted by the 1999 Legislature and signed into law by Governor Bush as the successor program to the Preservation 2000 land acquisition program, provides $3 billion over ten years to acquire land or less than fee interests in land to protect environmentally significant lands for conservation, recreation, water resource protection, wildlife habitat protection and to provide for the proper management of and public access to those lands. Florida Statutes (F.S.): A permanent collection of state laws organized by subject area into a code made up of titles, chapters, parts and sections. The Florida Statutes are updated annually by laws that create, amend or repeal statutory material. Florida Water Plan (FWP): A statewide plan for the management of Florida's water resources, developed by the Department of Environmental Protection pursuant to section 373.036, Florida Statutes. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 146 1611 A Full Time Equivalent (FTE): A measurement of employee work hours, both all ated and utilized. One FTE is equivalent to 2,080 work hours per year (40 hours per week for 52 weeks). Fund: A fiscal and accounting entity with a self - balancing set of accounts recording cash and other financial resources, together with all related liabilities and residual equities or balances, and changes therein, which are segregated for the purpose of carrying on specific activities or attaining certain objectives in accordance with special regulations, restrictions, or limitations. Fund Balance: The excess of fund assets over liabilities in governmental funds. The unreserved and undesignated balance is available for appropriation in the following year's budget. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP): Accounting rules and procedures established by authoritative bodies or conventions that have evolved through custom and common usage. General Fund: The governmental accounting fund supported by ad valorem (property) taxes, licenses and permits, service charges and other general revenues to provide district wide operating services. Geographic Information System (GIS): A specialized data management system designed for the entry, analysis, and display of data commonly found on maps. Governing Board: The water management district is governed by a nine - member board appointed by the Governor to serve staggered four -year terms. Board members, who are selected by the Governor and serve without salary, must be confirmed by the Florida Senate. Grant: A contribution of assets (usually cash) by one governmental unit or' other organization to another made for a specific purpose. Homestead Exemption: A $25,000 discount applied to the assessed value of property. Every person who has legal title to a residential property and lives there permanently as of January 1 of the application year qualifies to apply for a homestead exemption. House Bill 1B (HB 1 B): House of Representatives bill (number 1B) entitled "An Act relating to ad valorem taxation" that was passed by the Legislature on June 14, 2007, and signed into law by Governor Charlie Crist on June 21, 2007. The HB 1B tax reform legislation requires cities, counties and independent special districts to roll back their millage rates to the 2007 revenue levels, plus an adjustment for new construction. The bill requires use of the statutorily defined "roll -back rate" (i.e., a rate which exclusive of new construction, major improvements, deletions and annexations, will provide the same level of revenue for each taxing authority as was levied during the prior year). For fiscal year 2007 -2008, the water management districts will be required to cut an additional 3 percent from the "rolled -back rate." (Cities and counties will be required to cut either 0 percent, 3 percent, 5 percent, 7 percent or 9 percent based on the local government's five -year history of property taxes on a per capita basis compared to the statewide average taxes on a per capita basis.) Future millage increases for cities, SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 147 Q 16*11 counties and independent special districts after fiscal year 2007 -2008 will be limited to the "rolled -back rate" and adjusted for growth in per capita Florida personal income. Hydrologic Basin: Equivalent to a watershed; the area where all the water drains. Hydrology: The scientific study of the properties, distribution and effects of water on the earth's surface, in the soil and underlying rocks, and in the atmosphere. Hydropattern: Water depth, duration, timing and distribution of fresh water in a specified area. A consistent hydropattern is critical for maintaining various ecological communities in wetlands. Hydroperiod: The frequency and duration of inundation or saturation of an ecosystem. In the context of characterizing wetlands, the term hydroperiod describes that length of time during the year that the substrate is either saturated or covered with water. Inspector General: The Inspector General provides an independent view of district operations through objective and professional audits, investigations, reviews and evaluations of the economy and efficiency of taxpayer- financed programs. This information is then made available to the district governing board and management, elected representatives, and citizens within the district's boundaries. Irrigation: The application of water to crops and other plants by artificial means. Interagency Expenditures: Funds used to assist other local agencies, regional agencies, the State of Florida, the federal government, public and private universities, and not - for - profit organizations in projects that have a public purpose. Intergovernmental Revenue: Revenue received from another government unit for a specific purpose. Lagoon: A body of water separated from the ocean by barrier islands, with limited exchange with the ocean through inlets. Leased Positions: Leased positions represent leasing- agency employees who perform project - specific tasks of limited duration. Levee: An embankment used to prevent or confine flooding. Levy /Levied: To impose taxes, special assessments, or service charges for the support of governmental activities. Line -Item Budget: A budget that lists each account category separately along with the dollar amount budgeted for each account. Liquidity: The ability or ease with which assets can be converted into cash. Littoral Zone: The shore of land surrounding a water body that is characterized by periodic inundation or partial saturation by water level, and is typically defined by the species of vegetation found there. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 148 A 1611 al Loading: The amount' of material carried by water into a specified area, expressed as mass per unit of time. One example is phosphorus loading into a Water Conservation Area, measured in metric tons per year. LOFT: Lake Okeechobee Fast Track Projects Managerial Reserves: Funds earmarked for specific future use. Marsh: An area of low -lying wetlands. Mandate: Any responsibility, action, or procedure that is imposed by one branch of government on another through constitutional, legislative, administrative, executive, or judicial action as a direct order, or that is required as a condition of aid. Measure: Indicator used to assess performance in achieving objectives or program goals. Mill /Millage Rate: The tax rate on real property, based on $1 per $1,000 of assessed property value. Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs): The district has been legislatively mandated (Section 373.042, Florida Statutes) to establish minimum flows or water levels for the State's surface water courses, surface water bodies, and aquifers such that they represent the limit beyond which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources (or ecology) of the area. Mitigation: To make less severe; to alleviate, diminish or lessen; one or all of the following may comprise mitigation: (1) avoiding an impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of an action and its implementation; (3) rectifying an impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment; (4) reducing or eliminating an impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of an action; and (5) compensating for an impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Mobile Irrigation Lab (MIL): A vehicle furnished with irrigation evaluation equipment, which is used to carry out on -site evaluations of irrigation systems and to provide recommendations on improving irrigation efficiency. Model: A way of looking at reality, usually for the purpose of abstracting and simplifying it to make it understandable in a particular context; this may be a plan to describe how a project will be completed, or a tool to mathematically represent a process which could be based upon empirical or mathematical functions. Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting in which revenues are recognized when current assets, and expenditures are incurred. A basis of accounting for governmental funds they become measurable and available as net recognized when the related fund liability is SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 149 {: 16 �f A Monif oring: The capture, analysis and reporting of project performance, usually as compared to plan. National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD): A geodetic datum derived from a network of information collected in the United States and Canada. It was formerly called the "Sea Level Datum of 1929" or "mean sea level." Although the datum was derived from the average sea level over a period of many years at 26 tide stations along the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific Coasts, it does not necessarily represent local mean sea level at any particular time. Navigational Lock: An enclosure used to raise or lower boats from one level to another. Non - Operating Expenditures: Expenditures of a type that do no represent direct operating costs to the fund; include transfers out, transfers to Constitutional Officers, and reserves for contingency. Non - Operating Revenues: Financial support for funds that are classified separately from revenues; include transfers in and internal service fund receipts. Object Code: An account to which an expense or expenditure is recorded in order to accumulate and categorize the various types of payments that are made by governments. Object codes are defined in the State of Florida Uniform Accounting System. Ombudsman: A government official who hears and investigates complaints by private citizens against other officials or government agencies. Operating Budget: A comprehensive plan, expressed in financial terms, by which an operating program is funded for a single fiscal year. It includes estimates of a.) the services, activities and sub activities comprising the district's operation; b.) the resultant expenditure requirements; and c.) the resources available for the support. Operating Capital Outlay: Payments for automotive equipment, boats, computer hardware, furniture and equipment. Items have a value of at least $750 and an estimated service life of at least one year. Operating Expenses: All costs for items to be used as part of something else or disposed of within a year of purchase, including parts and supplies, small tools or equipment, and construction and maintenance products; and all costs associated with rental or lease of equipment, buildings, offices, insurance programs, permits and fees paid to other agencies, taxes, and relocation. Other Personal Services (OPS): Services rendered by a person who is not a regular or full -time employee filling an established position. These services include, but are not limited to, services of temporary employees, student or graduate assistants, persons on fellowships, part-time academic employees, board members, and consultants, and other services specifically budgeted by an agency. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 150 Iputs Performance Measures: Specific quant itative measures of �� p� rf and outcomes.., Periphyton: The biological community of microscopic plants and animals attached to surfaces in aquatic environments, for example, algae. Permit Fees: Application processing fees charged to applicants for permits, including Environmental Resource, Surface Water Management, Water Use, and Well Construction Permits. Phosphorus: An element or nutrient required for energy production in living organisms; distributed into the environment mostly as phosphates by agricultural runoff and life cycles; and frequently the limiting factor for growth of microbes and plants. Phosphorus Transport Model (PTM): Estimates the effectiveness of phosphorus load- reduction strategies. This information is used by district programs to meet their respective goals. Pollutant Load Reduction Goal (PLRG): Establishes dies thti desired levels of nutrient and sediment loads for healthy seagrass growth Preservation 2000 (132000): The land acquisition program established by section 259.101, Florida Statutes, that provides $300 million annually in bonds for land acquisition for environmental protection, recreation, ril 2000. space, Pog`ram completed and and other purposes. Last bond was issued p succeeded by Florida Forever. Procurement: The purchasing of something usually for a company, government or other organization. Program: An integrated series of related projects or activities. Program Component: Key element of a program. Program Goal: The desired outcome of a program. Project: A temporary endeavor undertaken to produce a specific product, service or outcome. Property Appraiser: The elected county official annlual tax responsible for setting property valuations for tax purposes and for preparing t Proposed Budget: The recommended district budget submitted by the budget director to the governing board for review and consideration. andh s pr resented toghei Bove nanlg developed in the months of March through June board at a Budget Workshop in June. Proposed Millage: The tax rate certified to a property appraiser by each taxing authority within a county. The proposed millage is to be sent to the County Property Appraiser within thirty days after a county's tax roll is certified by the State Department SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission of Revenue, and fisted on notices sent to property owners. Jbint lh' ' ority may approve a tax rate that is larger than the one it originally proposed. Public Water Supply: Water that is withdrawn, treated, transmitted and distributed as potable or reclaimed water. Pump Stations: Manmade structures that use pumps to transfer water from one location to another. Real Property: Land and buildings and /or other structures attached to it that are taxable under state law. Regional Water Supply Plan: Detailed water supply plan developed by the district under Section 373.0361, Florida Statutes, providing an evaluation of available water supply and projected demands, at the regional scale. The planning process projects future demand for 20 years and recommends projects to meet identified needs. Reserves: Budgeted funds to be used for contingencies, managerial reserves, and capital expenditure needs requiring additional governing board approval. Reserve for Contingencies: An amount set aside, consistent with statutory authority that can subsequently be appropriated to meet unexpected needs. Reservoir: A man -made or natural water body used for water storage. Restricted Funds: Revenues committed to a project or program, or that are restricted in purpose by law. Examples of restricted funds include state appropriations for stormwater projects and federal FEMA capital project funds. Restoration: The recovery of a natural system's vitality and biological and hydrological integrity to the extent that the health and ecological functions are self- sustaining over time. Restoration, Coordination, and Verification (RECOVER): is designed as an interagency, interdisciplinary team for the purpose of organizing and applying the best available scientific and technical information in support of the goals of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). Revenue: Funds that a government receives as income. These receipts may include tax payments, interest earnings, service charges, grants, and intergovernmental payments. Reverse Osmosis (RO): A membrane process for desalting water using applied pressure to drive the source water through a semipermeable membrane. Rolled -Back Rate: The rate that would generate prior year tax revenues less allowances for new construction, plus additions to the tax roll minus deletions to the tax roll. The rolled -back rate controls for changes in the market value of property and, if levied, represents "no tax increase" from the prior year. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 152 I t Ht {^ f, Rookery: A breeding dace or colony of gregarious birds or ani als. Save Our Everglades Trust Fund: was created by the Florida legislature in 2000 for the purpose of funding the state's share of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The legislation called for the trust fund to receive $100 million annually in state funding through the program's first ten -year period. Save Our Rivers (SOR): The land acquisition program based on section 373.59, Florida Statutes, designed to identify, prioritize, and acquire interests in lands necessary for water management, water supply and conservation, and protection of water resources. The SOR program is funded by the Water Management Lands Trust Fund and the prior Preservation 2000 Trust Fund. Seepage: Water that escapes control through levees, canals or other hold or conveyance systems. Sheet Flow: A channel in which water moves sluggishly, or a place of deep muck, mud or mire. Sloughs are wetland habitats that serve as channels for water draining off surrounding uplands and/or wetlands. Sinking Fund: A fund to accumulate monies for major items, such as partnerships on large restoration projects and water supply development assistant projects. Special Obligation Land Acquisition Bonds: Securities issued by the district to provide funds for acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands. Principle and interest on these bonds are secured by a lien on documentary-stamp excise taxes collected by the State of Florida. Special Revenue Fund: A governmental accounting fund used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are legally restricted to expenditures for specific purposes. Spillway: A passage for surplus water to run over or around an obstruction, such as a dam. Stakeholder: Any party that has an interest in an organization. Stakeholders of a company include stockholders, bondholders, customers, suppliers, employees, and so forth. Statute: A law enacted by a legislature. Storage Area Network (SAN): The term for a group of servers that have been linked together to form greater disk space. Storm Water: Water that does not infiltrate, but accumulates on land as a result of storm or irrigation runoff or drainage from such areas as roads and roofs. Stormwater Treatment Area (STA): A system of constructed water quality treatment wetlands that use natural biological processes to reduce levels of nutrients and pollutants from surface water runoff. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 153 $z 16I Oq Structure Information Verification (STRIVE): A project that was establishek trify input data used to compute flow at district water control structures. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV): Wetland plants that exist completely below the water surface. Surface Water: Water above the soil or substrate surface, whether contained in bounds created naturally or artificially or diffused. Water from natural springs is classified as surface water when it exits from the spring onto the earth's surface. Supervisory Control & Data Acquisition System ( SCADA): The SCADA system gathers data from remote locations to control equipment and conditions. The SCADA system includes hardware and software components. The hardware gathers and feeds data into a computer that has SCADA software installed. The computer then processes this data, records and logs all events, and warns when conditions become hazardous. Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM): A program to restore and protect priority water bodies identified by the water management districts as a result of the Legislature's SWIM Act of 1987. Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan: A plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Task: A specific, measurable action. Tax Base: The total property valuations on which each taxing authority levies its tax rates. Tax Roll: The certification of assessed and taxable values prepared by the Property Appraiser and presented to the taxing authority by July 1 (or later if an extension is granted by the State of Florida) each year. Tax Year: The calendar year in which ad valorem property taxes are levied to finance the ensuing fiscal year budget. For example, the tax roll for the 2007 calendar year would be used to compute the ad valorem taxes levied for the FY 2007 -2008 budget. Telemetry: Automatic transmission and measurement of data from remote sources by wire or radio or other means. Tentative Budget: In July, the governing board sets a tentative millage rate and adopts a tentative budget based on the taxable value of property within the district, as certified by the Property Appraiser, for the new fiscal year beginning October 1 and ending September 30. At the second public hearing in September, the governing board adopts a final budget and millage rate. Tentative Millage: The tax rate adopted in the first budget hearing of a taxing agency. Under state law, the agency may reduce, but not increase, the tentative millage during the final budget hearing. Topography: The term used for the surface features of a place or region. SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 154 1611 Totj M4cimum Daily Load (TMDL): The maximum allowed level of pollutant loading for a water body, while still protecting its uses and maintaining compliance with water quality standards, as defined in the Clean Water Act. Transfer: Internal movement of budgeted funds within a fund, department, program, object, or project that increases one budget account and decreases another. Transpiration: The rising of vapor containing waste products through the pores of plant tissue. Treatment Facility: Any plant or other works used for the purpose of treating, stabilizing or holding wastewater. Tributary: A stream feeding into a larger stream, canal or waterbody. Truth in Millage (TRIM): Requirement in section 200.065, Florida Statutes, that establishes a specific timetable and procedure for local governments and water management districts to consider and adopt their annual budgets. Unencumbered Carryover: The amount of an appropriation that is neither expended nor encumbered (i.e., there is no commitment to expend future funds). Essentially, these uncommitted funds are made available for future purposes. Water Conservation: Reducing the demand for water through activities that alter water use practices, e.g., improving efficiency in water use, and reducing losses of water, waste of water and water use. Water Conservation Areas (WCA): Part of the original Everglades ecosystem that is now diked and hydrologically controlled for flood control and water supply purposes. These are located in the western portions of Miami -Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties, and preserve a total of 1,337 square miles, or about 50 percent of the original Everglades. Water Management District (WMD): A regional water management district created pursuant to section 373.069, Florida Statutes Water Management Lands Trust Fund (WMLTF): The trust fund established by section 373.59, Florida Statutes, for water management district land acquisition, management, maintenance, capital improvements, payments in lieu of taxes, and administration in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes Water Preserve Areas (WPA): Multipurpose water - holding areas located along the western border of southeast Florida's urbanized corridor. Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund (WPSTF): The trust fund established by Section 373.196, Florida Statutes, for alternative water supply development and surface water improvements and management. This fund was created in 2005 under the Growth Management Initiative (SB 444). SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 155 r 16I it Al Water Reservations: State law on water reservations, in Section 373.223(4), Florida Statutes, defines water reservations as follows: the governing board or the department, by regulation, may reserve from use by permit applicants, water in suclocations and quantities, and for such reasons of the year, as in its judgment may be required for the protection of fish and wildlife or the public health and safety. Such reservations shall be subject to periodic review and revision in the light of changed conditions. Water Supply Development: The planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of public or private facilities for water collection, production, treatment, transmission, or distribution for sale, resale, or end use (section 373.019(21), Florida Statutes). Water Table: The upper surface of the saturation zone in an aquifer. Watershed: A region or area bounded peripherally by a water parting and draining ultimately to a particular watercourse or body of water. Weir: A barrier placed in a stream to control the flow and cause it to fall over a crest. Weirs with known hydraulic characteristics are used to measure flow in open channels. Wetland: An area that is inundated or saturate d vegetation adapted for life under those soil marshes). SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission by surface water or groundwater with conditions (e.g., swamps, bogs and Page 156 1611 APPENDIX D ACRONYMS ADA Americans with Disability Act ACSC Area of Critical State Concern ACF Apalachicola- Chattahoochee -Flint AOR Area of Responsibility ArcSDE Arc Spatial Database Engine ARDAS Automated Remote Data Acquisition System ASR Aquifer Storage & Recovery ATT Advanced Treatment Technologies AWS Alternate Water Supply BAT Best Available Technology BCB Big Cypress Basin BEBR Bureau of Economic and Business Research BFAC Budget & Finance Advisory Commission BMP Best Management Practices BPM Budget Performance Measure C &SF Central & Southern Florida Project for Flood Control & Other Purposes CAFR Comprehensive Annual Financial Report CARL Conservation & Recreation Lands Program CCMP Comprehensive Coastal Management Plan CCPCD Collier County Pollution Control Department CCTV Closed Circuit Television Cameras CEMP Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan CES Center for Environmental Studies CIAP Coastal Impact Assistance Program CIP Capital Improvement Plan CM Common Measure COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers COOP Continuity of Operations Plan COP Certification of Participation CREW Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed CRP Critical Restoration Projects CSE Continued Service Estimate CSOP Combined Structural & Operational Plan CUP Consumptive Use Permit CWM Comprehensive Watershed Management Initiative CZM Coastal Zone Management DACS Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Florida DCA Department of Community Affairs, Florida SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 157 4', - SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 158 DED Deputy Executive Director A DEP Department of Environmental Protection, Florida DOI Department of the Interior, Florida DOQQ Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangle DOR Department of Revenue DOT Department of Transportation, Florida DRI Development of Regional Impacts DSS Decision Support System DWMP District Water Management Plan DWSP District Water Supply Plan DHQ District Headquarters EAA Everglades Agricultural Area EAP Emergency Action Plan EAP Employee Assistance Program EAR Evaluation & Appraisal Report EASTCOM Emergency Satellite Communications System ECP Everglades Construction Project EDM Enterprise Data Management Strategy EDMS Electronic Document Management System EEO Equal Employment Opportunity EFA Everglades Forever Act EMA Environmental Monitoring & Assessment EMPACT Environmental Monitoring Public Access Community Tracking EMRTF Ecosystem Management & Restoration Trust Fund ENP Everglades National Park ENR Everglades Nutrient Removal EOC Emergency Operations Center EOG Executive Office of the Governor EPA Everglades Protection Area EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERC Environmental Regulation Commission ERP Environmental Resource Permit ESCO Environmental Studies & Community Outreach ESDA Electronic Support & Data Acquisition ESP Everglades Stormwater Program ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute ETDM Efficient Transportation Decision Making F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code FARMS Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (program) FCD Central & Southern Florida Flood Control District FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services FDCA Florida Department of Community Affairs SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 158 161','1 A i '! FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FDLE Florida Department of Law Enforcement FDOT Florida Department of Transportation FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FF Florida Forever FFWCC Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission FGCU Florida Gulf Coast University FHREDI Florida Heartland Rural Economic Development Initiative FKFBFS Florida Keys / Florida Bay Feasibility Study FKNMS Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary FMLA Family Medical Leave Act FOC Field Operations Center FP&L Florida Power & Light F.S. Florida Statutes F.S.S. Florida State Statutes FTE Full Time Equivalent FWP Florida Water Plan FY Fiscal Year GASB Governmental Accounting Standards Board GB Governing Board GFOA Government Finance Officers Association GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System HB 113 House Bill 1B (2007 tax reform legislation) HDS Hydrologic Data Services HR Human Resources HVAC Heating Ventilation & Air Conditioning ICMS Integrated Contract Management System IFAS Institute of Food & Agricultural Services, Florida IRL Indian River Lagoon IT Information Technology IWRM Integrated Water Resource Monitoring KICCO Kissimmee Island Cattle Company KOE Kissimmee - Okeechobee - Everglades KRR Kissimmee River Restoration KRREP Kissimmee River Restoration Evaluation Program LAMP Land Acquisition & Management Plan LEC Lower East Coast LGFS Local Government Financial System LO Lake Okeechobee LOADSS Lake Okeechobee Agricultural Decision Support System Model LOER Lake Okeechobee Estuary Recovery SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 159 V,4 f LOPA Lake Okeechobee Protection Act LOPP Lake Okeechobee Protection Program 16 1 t LPO Locally referred Y Option LSJRB Lower St. Johns River Basin MCA Marsh Conservation Areas LWC Lower West Coast LWCWSP Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan MBE Minority Business Enterprise MFLs Minimum Flows & Levels MGD Millions of Gallons a Day MILs Mobile Irrigation Labs MIS Management Information System MOU Memorandum of Understanding MSJRB Middle St. Johns River Basin MSSW Management & Storage of Surface Waters NASA National Aeronautical Space Administration NCB Northern Coastal Basin NEP National Estuary Program NOAA National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration NPB North Palm Beach NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NTBWRAP Northern Tampa Bay Water Resource Assessment Project NTBWUCA Northern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area NWFWMD Northwest Florida Water Management District NWSI New Water Sources Initiative O &M Operation & Maintenance OC Office of Counsel OCB Orange Creek Basin OCBAC Orange Creek Basin Advisory Council OFW Outstanding Florida Waters OIG Office of Inspector General OPB Office of Planning & Budgeting OP &B Office of Policy & Budgeting OPS Other Personal Services OSHA Occupational Safety & Health Administration P2000 Preservation 2000 PIR Project Implementation Report PLRG Pollutant Load Reduction Goal PMP Project Management Plan PPB Parts Per Billion PPDR Pilot Project Design Report SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 160 :Al loll AY '" PR/MRWSA Peace River /Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority ' PSTA 0 riphyton -based Stormwater Treatment Area PTM Phosphorus Transport Model QA Quality Assurance QWIP Quality of Water Improvement Program RDBMS Relational Database Management System RECOVER Restoration Coordination & Verification Project Comprehensive Review Study RESTUDY Central & Southern Florida RFP Request for Proposals ROMP Regional Observation Monitoring Program ROW Right of Way RPC Regional Planning Council RSTF Regional Stormwater Treatment Facility RWSP Regional Water Supply Plan SAN Storage Area Network SAP System Application & Programs Sc Service Center SCADA Supervisory Control & Data Acquisition Method for Process Improvement SCAMPI Standard CMMI Appraisal SDE Spatial Database Engine SFWMD South Florida Water Management District SGGE Southern Golden Gate Estates SGWB Southern Ground -Water Basin SJRWMD St. Johns River Water Management District SOETF Save Our Everglades Trust Fund SOP Standard Operating Procedures SOR Save Our Rivers (Program) SRPP Strategic Regional Policy Plan SRWMD Suwannee River Water Management District STA Stormwater Treatment Area STAG State & Tribal Assistance Grants STORET The National Weather Database STRIVE Structure Information Verification SWFRPC Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council SWFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management District SWIM Surface Water Improvement & Management (Program) S.W.O.C. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Challenges SWUCA Southern Water Use Caution Area TBD To Be Determined TBRPC Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council TBW Tampa Bay Water TCAA Tri- County Agricultural Area Page 161 SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 1611 TRIM Truth in Millage TV Temporal Variability TWG Technical Working Group UEC Upper East Coast UORB Upper Ocklawaha River Basin USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United State Fish & Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey WASP Water Augmentation Supply Potential Model WaterSIP Water Savings Incentive Program WAV Watershed Action Volunteer WCA Water Conservation Area WMA Water Management Areas WMD(s) Water Management District(s) WMIS Water Management Information System WMLTF Water Management Lands Trust Fund WOD Works of the District WPA Water Preserve Area WPSP Water Protection & Sustainability Program WPSTF Water Protection & Sustainability Trust Fund WQMP Water Quality Monitoring Program WQPP Water Quality Protection Program WRA Water Resources Act WRAC Water Resource Advisory Commission WRAP Water Resource Assessment Project WRDA Water Resources Development Act WRM Wetland Resource Management WRPC Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council WRWSA Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority WSA Water Supply Assessment WSE Water Supply for the Environment WSRD Water Supply & Resource Development WUCA Water Use Caution Area WUP Water Use Permit (also known as CUP) WUPNET Water Use Permit Water Quality Monitoring Network WWC Water Well Construction SFWMD FY2010 Tentative Budget Submission Page 162 Al RECEIVED AUG 3 1 2010 Fiala l -�--� Halas ��.r� —.-- Coyle Coletta Collier County Airport Authority ., Advisory Board Meeting Immokalee Regional Airport 165 Airport Park, Immokalee, FL 34142 July 12, 2010 Meeting Minutes A. Pledge of Allegiance. B. Call to Order. Chairman Byron Meade called the meeting to order at 1:00 PM. C. Roll Call and Announcement AQuorum. Advisory Board Members Present: Byron Meade, Michael Klein, Frank Secrest, Lloyd Byerhof, James Murray, David Gardner and Floyd Crews. Advisory Board Members Absent /Excused:, Richard Rice Staff Present: Penny Phillippi, Debbie Brueggeman, Debi Mueller, Bob Tweedie, and Thomas Vergo. Others Present: Please see sign in sheet attached. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. D. Introductions. All present introduced themselves. E. Adoption of the Agenda. Ms. Phillippi announced an addition to the agenda under New Business, as Item L, Quarterly Reports. Action: Mr. Klein made a motion to approve the addition, Mr. Murray seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. Action: Mr. eyerhof made a motion to approve the agenda, Mr. Secrest seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. F. Communications. Ms. Phillippi announced that a Communications Folder was being circulated that contained the Meeting Notice, a Newspaper Article and copies of the MOUs negotiated with local hotels. G. Featured Employee Ms. Phillippi introduced a new program to the Advisory Committee wherein each month an employee will be asked to address the Advisory Committee to provide information about their background, their job and projects they are working on or would like to move forward. Mir.. Correa: 1 ear: b a� Item #: B- I C^.aias to: 161181 Tom Vergo, the July Featured Employee, provided a brief presentation about his history with CCAA, his current job and projects he has recently completed. H. Old Business. a. Airport Security Update. Ms. Phillippi stated that at the last meeting of the CCAA Advisory Committee, it was decided that the CCAA should retain unarmed guards for night duty at the Immokalee Airport. Staff requested that that decision be reversed based on the knowledge that the Collier County Sheriff's Department has assured us that they are required to come onto airport property and check it 3 to 4 times every night. Action: Mr. Gardner made a motion to take no action on security at the airports at this time. Mr. Crews seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. b. Fuel cost analysis for Immokalee Airport. Debi Mueller presented a comprehensive report on fuel costs at the Immokalee Airport. Debi responded to all questions presented by the Committee. Action: Chairman Meade appointed Lloyd Byerhof, Floyd Crews and Jim Murray as the Fuel Pricing Sub - Committee to study the profitability of aviation fuel at the Immokalee Airport. He asked them to report back at the August meeting. C. Weather /Wind Reporting Station at Everglades Park. Tom Vergo provided a brief report on the newly installed weather /wind reporting station at the Everglades Airpark. Mr. Klein requested that the Committee consider installing Wi -Fi at the Everglades Airpark. d. Seminole Casino August 7 Event. Bob Tweedie provided copies of the flyer for the event and gave a brief presentation of the plans to provide Red Carpet Service for the August 71h Casino Fly -In event in Immokalee. Mr. Meade asked that all Advisory Committee Members show up on that day to assist staff with operations. Action: Mr. Byerhof made a motion to reduce the fuel cost by ten cents per gallon on the day of the event. Mr. Gardner seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. New Business. a. Approval of June 14, 2010 Minutes. Action: Mr. Klein made a motion to approve the June minutes. Mr. Secrest seconded the motion, and the June Minutes were approved by unanimous vote. N 17- b. Approval of Finance Report. Action: Mr. Byerhof made a motion to approve the July Financial Report. Mr. Klein seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. C. Trust for Public Land. Mr. Doug Hattaway, The Trust for Public Land, presented the purpose, function and services provided for acquisition of land. Due to the renewed interest in purchasing the 52 acres near the Everglades Airpark, he suggested we allow things to evolve to best determine how best to utilize the program. d. Approval to purchase sump saver recovery units for fuel systems at the Immokalee Airport, not to exceed $8,000. Ms. Phillippi stated that the Marco Airport has a sump saver recovery system that provides for the reclamation of fuel. Staff requested approval to purchase such a system for the Immokalee airport. Action: Mr. Klein made a motion to instruct staff to gain the necessary bids and proceed with the purchase of the sump recovery system for the Immokalee Airport. Mr. Crews seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. e. Employee Personnel Policy, Ms. Phillippi explained that staff provided an Employee Personnel Policy to Committee members at the June meeting and asked for a review. The recent termination of a CCAA employee and the circular appeal process demonstrated that clarity is needed for CCAA personnel procedures. The CCAA and the CRA (like the County Manager and County Attorney's Offices) are separate legal entities. The general policies were written specifically for the County Managers Office. The policies adopted by the CRA defers to the Executive Director rather than the County Manager. Staff requested instruction to proceed with a like policy for the CCAA. Action: Mr. Murray made a motion to proceed with the Employee Personnel Policy for the CCAA. Mr. Byerhof seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. f. Hole Montes Work Order. Ms. Phillippi stated that this work order for approximately $35,000 covers a - careful assessment of existing conditions, design and bidding of needed improvements for the runway lighting at the Immokalee Airport. She stated that it does not include construction, installation or oversight. Staff requested approval of the Work Order. The Advisory Committee took exception to the cost as it was considered exorbitant. Further, they indicated their displeasure with the number of change 3 orders being received by contractors. Ms. Phillippi suggested that staff be afforded opportunities to receive grant /construction management training. Action: Mr. Gardner made a motion to approve the Work Order, Mr. Secrest seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. g. Budget Amendments. Staff requested instruction to transmit budget amendments to the CCAA for the Immokalee Phase 2 permits. Action: Mr. Gardner moved to execute the Budget amendments, Mr. Klein seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. h. Resumes for Three Final Candidates for Executive Director. The resumes in the Committee Packets represent the recommendations for the three finalists for the Executive Director position to transmit to the BCC for interview. The CCAA will accommodate travel for these individuals. The interviews will be conducted on July 28, and the time specific is 1:00 PM in the BCC Chambers. Len Price provided a brief overview of the process. Mr. Byerhof and Ms. Phillippi assured the Committee of the excellence of the candidates. Mr. Meade stated that he felt the CCAA Advisory Board should be present the day of the interviews. i. Quarterly Reports. The Committee was provided a copy of the June 30, 2010 quarterly report for FDOT funded projects that staff submitted to the FDOT on July 2, 2010. Ms. Phillippi indicated that the June 30, 2010 quarterly report for FAA funded projects is due on July 15, 2010, and the Committee will receive a copy at the August meeting. In the future quarterly reports will be provided to the Committee prior to being submitted to the respective grant agency. J. Advisory Board Comments. Byron Meade. No comments. Michael Klein. Mr. Klein reiterated his interest in seeing the Everglades Airpark receive discussions on VASI, Wi -Fi, and replacement of the Security building. Frank Secrest. No comments. Lloyd Byerhof. Mr. Byerhof expressed interest in sea plane operations at the Everglades City Airport, stating it would be a compliment to the facility. 4 James Murray. Mr. Murray also indicated an interest in discussing installation of VAST at Everglades Airpark. Richard Rice. Absent. Floyd Crews. Mr. Crews indicated an interest in acquiring land in Everglades City for additional hangers. K. Citizen Comments. Marvin Courtright stated he has presented a letter of intent to construct an aviation museum at the Immokalee Airport. The Mayor of Everglades City stated the City is not interested in having a marina near the airport. L. Next Meeting. The next meeting will be held on August 9, 2010 at the Marco Island Executive Airport at 1:00 PM. M. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 3:30 PM. COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT ADVISORY COLLIER COU�ORIDA Byron Meade, airman 5 0110F � " 4 Fiafa,, fa Halas _CEIVED Henning AUG 3 1 2010 Coyle Coletta "ounxy COMMISSITURier County Airport Authority Advisory Board Fuel Pricing Committee 1611 B 1 Immokalee Regional Airport 165 Airport Park, Immokalee, FL 34142 July 26, 2010 Minutes A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 10:05 AM. B. Attendance: Fuel Pricing Committee Members: Lloyd Byerhof, James Murray, and Floyd Crews. Advisory Board Member(s) Present: Richard Rice. Staff: Penny Phillippi, Debbie Brueggeman, Thomas Vergo, and Nicolas Dexter (intern). Public: Steve Fletcher and Bill Garrett. C. Set A fuel prices at Immokalee Regional Airport. Fletcher Flying Services represents approximately 96% (ninety-six percent) of Jet-A fuel sales at the Immokalee Regional Airport (IMM). About 90% (ninety percent) of their work is done out of IMM. Mr. Fletcher indicated that he could potentially save about $1.00 per gallon if he were to purchase fuel at LaBelle, and that he is considering purchasing his own tanks and paying a flowage fee to the Airport Authority, The Committee discussed providing a fixed mark-up on fuel to Fletcher Flying Service and a different price for transient customers, negotiating special rates with certain customers, and being more competitive with LaBelle. Action: Mr. Crews made a motion to recommend that the Advisory Board approve a mark-up of $0.25 (twenty-five cents) over cost for aviation fuel purchased by Fletcher Flying Service. Mr. Byerhof seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. Action: Mr. Byerhof made a motion to recommend that the Advisory Board price Avgas at Immokalee competitively with LaBelle for a trial period of three to six months. Mr. Crews seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote, The Committee also talked about the need to develop a comprehensive plan that will retain current customers and attract new ones, and to aggressively market the all three airports. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 AK COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD, FUEL PRICING COMMITTEE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Misc. CWN: Jim'Wrray, Chairman of Fuel Pr icing Committee Da* Item #: Ccpips to: V-1" 161; 1 S Z Apri , 2010 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, April 20, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:30 PM in REGULAR SESSION at Domestic Animal Services Training Room, Davis Blvd., East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Michele Antonia VICE CHAIRMAN: Marcia Breithaupt Dr. Ruth Eisele Sgt. David Estes Tom Kepp, Jr. Dan Martin Jim Rich ALSO PRESENT: Amanda Townsend, Interim, Director, DAS Nan Gerhardt, Shelter Operations Mgr. Kathlene Drew, Volunteer Coordinator, DAS Hailey Alonso, Administrative Assistant, DAS Mix comes: ltem #: I Lk C -lies to: 16118'2 April 20, 2010 I. Call to Order: Chairman Michele Antonia called the meeting to order at 6:33 P.M. Dan Martin, newly appointed Advisory Board Member was introduced. H. Attendance: Attendance was taken and a quorum established. In attendance were several members of the public and volunteers in celebration of Volunteer Day. III. Approval of Agenda: Add: Under New Business item A. Licensing Enforcement Discussion (handout -2) Sgt. David Estes moved to approve the agenda as amended Second by Marcia Breithaupt. Carried unanimously, 7 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes: March 16, 2010 Change spelling: Page 2 Item I Call to Order — the word, meetin Jim Rich moved to approve the minutes of March 16, 2010, as amended Second by Dr. Ruth Eisele. Carried unanimously, 7 -0. V. Old Business A. Directors Report Amanda Townsend extended a welcome to Dan Martin and explained that he was appointed by the BCC following Larry Kenner's hiring to serve as Animal Control Officer for DAS. She noted the following activities at DAS: • Round one of the Budget preparation was under way. She thanked Jim Rich for his valuable input and cost - savings suggestions in shelter operations to help meet the 5% budget cut. • Staff has changed from using mop heads to using towels more sanitary and more easily laundered. • County Manager visited DAS and was provided a familiarization tour of the facility. • Preliminary budget had been submitted to Marla Ramsey and the OMB. Department heads will be meeting with them and the County Manager on May 21, with presentation to DASAB at their June meeting. The BCC will give final approval at June 24th and 25d` meetings. • DAS hosted Compassion Fatigue Training. The program helps staff to deal with their challenging work environment. • Volunteer Appreciation Day — recognition was given to all those who help care for the animals and get them ready for adoption. • Plans for better utilization of Collier TV by partnering with the Humane Society of the U.S. and the AD Council are underway. Samples of various animated ads were shown on the overhead projector. • Postcards and brochures have been sent out for license renewals. 1611 'Bp April 20, 2010 Chairman Michele Antonia suggested showing the clips in school and condo association presentations. Amanda also mentioned Senate Bill 2372 had passed out of committee. The Bill would allow an additional $10 to be collected on any citation ($1 to the Clerk's office and $9 to fund low cost spy and neuter clinic). Updates on this legislation, should it pass, will be reported to DASAB. Nan Gerhardt spoke about the implementation of catch nets. With the change to individual cages, transporting the cats will be easier and safer by shuttling injured or agitated cats into the nets to facilitated treating them. Kathlene Drew reported on the following volunteer activities: • Towels for Tails, the event at Sun and Fun Park, at which donated towels were exchanged for half price tickets to the water park, brought in 250 towels. Two dogs were brought to the event; one was adopted, providing another venue for adoption exposure. • Disney's Give -a -Day, Get —a -Day program — 456 volunteers participated; 1,662 hours were given at DAS • Volunteer were recognized for their dedication and number of donated hours -- 6, 936 hours in 2009 and 5,517 hours already in 2010. Noted was: 1. The various age spans of the volunteers (from high schoolers to retirees) who have donated over 500 hours. 2. Those who have worked tirelessly to place 78 animals with other rescue or shelter groups. 3. Those who devote care in getting animals bathed and dressed up for the Happy Tails show. She commented that everyone attending the DASAB meetings had one thing in common -- a strong love for animals. B. DAS Second Quarter Statistical Report Amanda Townsend reviewed the various statistical reports with the DASAB Members, noting: o Higher intake from Animal Control Officers (ACO) in the field rather than those brought in to the shelter. o The increase in volunteer hours o An explanation of the number of ACO, their schedules, duties and staffing issues with two permanently frozen positions o Greater working relationship with the Sheriff's Office o Workload of incoming calls greatly increased o Thank you to Humane Society Naples, who took in 158 animals from DAS last quarter. o Medical fostering information upcoming at next meeting. o Explanation and discussion on drop -off boxes Lengthy discussion was conducted on various aspects of the quarterly statistics. 16Ll alo Tl0, 2 C. Clarification of Microchip Checking (handout) Chairman Michele Antonia had requested the clarification. A handout of the policy on Microchip Research was provided and read from by Amanda. The policy referred to and addressed Microchip procedures for "reasonable attempts to re -unite impounded stray animals with their owners". It did not refer to surrendered animals. Amanda Townsend stated, however, DAS would trace chips to known rescue groups DAS had a relationship with, but not individual owners. The issue was —legal property ownership. DAS must accept the person who signed the surrender form as the owner; once surrendered, DAS was the owner. VI. New Business: A. License Fee for Non - altered Pets (handout — Letter) Susan Heckel, who had contacted DAS with a complaint regarding increased fees for unaltered pets, was not able to be present. An e-mail to Amanda Townsend was shared with DASAB. Her issue was a pet was too old to be altered, did not create a nuisance and she just did not choose to own an altered animal. County policy does not allow exemptions to fee policy. Discussion followed on the following points: • Too many laws infringing on pet owners' rights • Reward those who do the right thing • Punish those who do not. • Provide incentives to comply • Payment plans Amanda Townsend cited a study that found unaltered pets created the overpopulation problem in that births of 52% of dogs and 53% cats were accidental — the owners never intended to have a litter. B. Protocol for Determining Behavior Problems Chairman Michele Antonia questioned the high statistic of euthanasia for behavior problems and what constituted so many of them. Nan Gerhardt explained determination was based upon both behavior history and behavior observed. She explained both categories, stating biting was the most prominent problem. Animals with aggressive behavior, age or medical issues were un- adoptable. Time and space was another problem cited. Adoption increase would help decrease euthanasia statistics as well as enforcement issues, citation collections and spay and neuter. C. Pet Friendly Condos Jim Rich read from a "Letter to the Editors" article which promoted changes to bylaws permitting pet ownership by condo associations. The benefits were: • More sales as retirees move to condos with their pets, both from homes and from northern states. 63% of the population own pets. • Proven health benefits to pet owners 1611 'B2 April 20, 2010 He offered to undertake the project by speaking to associations. He asked for feedback from DAS and the Advisory Board and support from other organizations such as the Humane Society and the Collier Cat Coalition. It was deemed a great idea by DASAB and staff. Dr. Ruth Eisele will assist Jim. Amanda Townsend noted Commissioner Halas holds a monthly meeting She will bring the article to his attention. VII. Public Comment Kelly Fox distributed a list of 11 questions on issues to be put on a future agenda. A review of the questions by the DASAB determined that all could be answered by Amanda and would not need DASAB consideration. She reported the Bed drive resulted in the delivery of 100 kongs, 7 "boom boxes" and some CDs to provide music for the animals. She commented on citation fine collections and a media blast for laws going into effect in May. Stephen Wright commended Jim Rich for his effort to speak to condo associations as a way to increase adoptions. He offered ideas to draw more exposure to DAS to encourage adoptions: • Increase parking. Plan and put in budget next year. • Solicit donations for gravel and materials • Have more events at DAS to bring people to the animals • Outreach/volunteers, ACOs, animals and flyers go to various venues Kathlene Drew responded that brochures and compliance flyer have been distributed by volunteers in various locations and private schools. Amanda Townsend noted the new brochures will have English on one side and be divided on the other side with Spanish and Creole. She will look into permitting issues regarding parking expansion. Terri Licastro spoke regarding enforcement. • Ways to enforce the laws and how to go about collecting fines need to be figured out and utilized. • Laws and enforcement are not strong enough. Follow ups are necessary. • Tying fines to drivers license or some other means should be pursued Dr. Ruth Eisele encouraged groups to bring ideas to DASAB for discussion. Amanda Townsend responded there were three basic issues over and above questions of an operational nature- how enforcement operations currently work. From the list ofpriority projects cited for this year two pertain to enforcement. 1. Work to improve licensing enforcement policies 2. Create a new updated policies and procedures manual 3. Identifying new projects for the future, what was not on this year's list She stated DASAB reviews policies and makes recommendations but does not make policies. Gisela Rowley shared a "Good News" story of the little dog, Chappy, who had been brought to DAS with serious behavioral problems, was rehabilitated, adopted and now "living in luxury" in Germany. April 20, 2010 VIII. Advisory Board Members Comments Jim Rich stated Assisted Living facilities encourage pets. He suggested residents could plan trips to DAS to visit animals and may adopt one. Also, field trips for school children could result in adoption. Dan Martin stated he was interested in researching the citation figures on the Quarterly Reports. He will research and report to the DASAB. Marcia Breithaupt requested the corrected press release on the anti - tethering. She also inquired about information mentioned in Kathlene's newsletter regarding owner training. Kathlene Drew responded it was in the process of being approved for implementation and will include training with each adoption and for volunteers. The next meeting of the DAS Advisory Board is scheduled for May 18, 2010. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 8:53 PM. COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES airman, Michel Antonia These minutes approved by Board/Committee on J as presented VI-11" or as amended � F Citizen Corps Advisory Committee Agenda July 21, 2010 3:00 Pledge of Allegiance Opening Remarks Roll Call Sheriff's Office CERV USCGA Red Cross Salvation Army Chamber of Commerce EMS EM Medical Examiner City of Naples Neighborhood Watch Cleveland Clinic City of Marco Island CERT 3:05 Approval of Minutes 3:10 Threat Update 3:15 New Business - Workshop - Travel Vouchers - Sunshine Law - What do you want to be focus of Cit Corp - Shelter Managers Training - 2010 DVD Hur. Prep - POD Managers training? - Coordinator Replacements - Update on Encephalitis and Dengue Fever 3:35 Old Business - Hurricane Season Update Oil Spill Update - Resource Guide 4:00 Next Meeting /Adjourn 1611"83 4 Chairman Fire Chiefs Veterans Council CAP Health Dept Everglades City NCH RSVP Chairman CCSO Chairman Chairman MAC Judy Judy ARC Judy DOH Chairman Rick Zyvoloski Rick Zyvoloski Russ /Judy Misc. Corms: Chairman Dge: � c� Item ik Ccnies to: 3 F t6H Hennin RECEIVED Collier County Coyle AUG 3 0 2010 Citizen Corps Advisory Committee Coletta July 21, 2010 Board of County Commissioners Voting Members Present: Russell Rainey, Community Emergency Response Team Lt. Mike Jones, Collier County Sheriff's Office Dr. Joseph Neiweem, Medical Reserve Corps Chris Nind, Salvation Army Doug Porter, Naples Civil Air Patrol Voting Members Absent: Jerry Sanford, North Naples Fire (Excused Absence) Walter Jaskiewicz, Coast Guard Auxiliary James Elson, Collier County Veterans Council Vacancy for American Red Cross Vacancy for Retired Senior Volunteer Program Vacancy for Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce Expert Consultants Present: Judy Scribner, Collier County Emergency Management Kathleen Marr, Department of Health Brian Kelly, Retired Senior Volunteer Program Mark Johnson, American Red Cross 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 Because of no quorum present, minutes from June 16`h meeting could not be approved and no minutes were taken for today's meeting. Next Meeting/Adjourn Next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 25th at 3 p.m. at the EOC. Please get any agenda items to Judy Scribner before then. Motion to adjourn the meeting at 3:55 p.m. made by Lt. Jones and seconded by Russ. Approved unanimously. Minutes submitted by Mary Ann Cole. Approved by Acting Chair: Russ 1 Rainey Date Mist. Comes: Dade: flem * Copies to: a Help in n COLLIER COUNTY SHELTER When Q Hurricane Comes Volunteers are needed to staff Red Cross shelters in Collier County this summer. COME FOR TRAINING: Collier County Red Cross 2610 Northbrooke Plaza Drive Wednesday, July 21, 2010 6 :00 p. m. - 7:45 p. m. Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gate Parkway 6 :00 p. m. - 7:45 p. m. The Marco Library 210 S. Heathwood Drive Marco Island Thursday, July 22, 2010 5'00 pm — 6:45pm The One Stop 750 South 5th Street Immokalee 6 :00 p. m. - 7:45 p. m. RSVP 239 - 596-6868 - collier County Red Cross 1611 B3 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 29, 2010 TO: Advisory Boards Liaisons FROM: Ian Mitchell RE: Advisory Board Member Mileage Reimbursement On November 18, 2008 the Collier County Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution #08 -341 authorizing the reimbursement of mileage expenses for Advisory Board members who travel in excess of 20 miles round trip to attend regularly scheduled Advisory Board meetings. To request reimbursement, the members were to submit the completed form to the Advisory Board Liaison for processing at the last meeting prior to July 31St Attached are the mileage rates for the applicable year, a mileage reimbursement request form, and for your information a detailed explanation of the guidelines. Thank you Ian Mitchell W) 0 N O O O� O O O O On z 0 H O a O U N W � W O � b aQv°� w xw x� O wO n ua�w U W x Q 0 G N N N � b bA � R go 3 N H �. �k L! rl awe � ss$ &y, E? O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a „ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U CC a C O RS y A O C 0 w O G •O a E 0 w .b U w a, a� L F U CC A 161183 b a U N vl O .^. GJ N U 2. N � U U � y � b � � � O O N 3 O 2 O >, O z aoi w � o t1. O 'a.+ X � � > cOd Q N G 4 O o U a' 64 W r� U U 3 .. z�T °q o 0 O;�QEY �DQ W Ci7 p 14 W d a Q a a ADVISORY COMMITTEE MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATES DATE MILEAGE RATES July -09 0.55 August -09 0.55 September -09 0.55 October -09 0.55 November -09 0.55 December -09 0.55 January -10 0.5 February -10 0.5 March -10 0.5 April -10 0.5 May -10 0.5 June -10 0.5 July -10 0.5 To Get Current Mileage Reimbursement Rates: Go To Intranet Page Employee POV Reimbursement Rates QuickLinks Privately Owned Vehicle POV Mileage Reimbursements 1611'83 Municode Print 16 I' � of 5 18� Collier County, Florida, Code of Ordinances >> PART I - CODE >> Chapter 2 - ADMINISTRATION >> ARTICLE VIII. - BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES AND AUTHORITIES >> DIVISION 16. - COLLIER COUNTY CITIZENS CORPS >> DIVISION 16. - COLLIER COUNTY CITIZENS CORPS22 Editor's note —Ord. No. 02 -13, § 1, adopted March 26, 2002, repealed div. 16, §§ 2- 1101 -2 -1107, in their entirety. Formerly said provisions pertained to the Community of Character Council as enacted by Ord. No. 01 -49, §§ 1 -8, adopted Sept. 11, 2001. Subsequently, Ord. No. 02 -56, §§ 1 -9, adopted Nov. 11, 2002 did not specifically amend this Code and has been included as a new div. 16, §§ 2- 1101 -2 -1109, to read as herein set out. See the Code Comparative Table— Ordinance Disposition. Sec. 2 -1101. - Title and citation. Sec. 2 -1102. - Findings of fact. Sec. 2 -1103. - Meetings of the committee. Sec. 2 -1104. - Functions, powers and duties of the committee and working groups. Sec. 2 -1105. - Appointment of voting members and terms of office. Sec. 2 -1106. - Removal from office, failure to attend meetings. Sec. 2 -1107. - Officers, quorum, and compensation. Sec. 2 -1108. - Expert consultants. Sec. 2 -1109. - Review process. Secs. 2- 1110 -2 -1115. - Reserved. Sec. 2 -1101. -Title and citation. This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "Collier County Citizens Corps Ordinance." (Ord. No. 02 -56, § 1, 11 -5 -02) http: //library.municode. com/print.aspx ?clientID= 10578 &HTMRequest = http %3a %2P' /o2fl... 12/15/2009 Murk code Sec. 2 -1102. - Findings of fact. Pat25.5, 161 (a) The Board of County Commissioners ( "board ") finds that the President of the United States, through the Office of Homeland Security, has asked our citizens to volunteer through local governments to assist in the fight against terrorism. (b) Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, authorizes the board to adopt ordinances creating advisory committees. (c) The board finds that the creation of a citizens corps ( "committee ") is necessary to provide information to the citizens of Collier County and to act as a coordinating agency for the enhancement of activities that support emergency services, law enforcement and disaster prevention, preparedness and response. (d) The board finds that the committee will assist in the recruitment of volunteers by publicizing and expanding existing community programs such as: Medical reserve, neighborhood watch, community emergency response teams (CERT), volunteers in police service (VIPS) and other public safety and law enforcement programs. (e) The board finds that the committee is necessary to facilitate communication between Collier County and state and federal agencies on mitigation activities as well as to enable Collier County to identify outside resources such as grants, training opportunities and equipment. (Ord. No. 02 -56, § 2, 11 -5 -02) Sec. 2 -1103. - Meetings of the committee. (a) The committee shall meet on a continuous and regularly scheduled basis. (b) All committee meetings shall be open to the public and shall be governed by the Florida Government in the Sunshine Law. All committee meetings shall be held after reasonable public notice is provided as to the location, time and subject matter of the meetings. (Ord. No. 02 -56, § 3, 11 -5 -02) Sec. 2 -1104. - Functions, powers and duties of the committee and working groups. (a) The committee shall be responsible for advising the Board of County Commissioners on a wide range of domestic terrorism related issues. (b) The committee shall act as a coordinating agency for the enhancement of activities that support emergency services, law enforcement and disaster prevention, preparedness and response. (c) The committee shall assist in the recruitment of volunteers by publicizing and expanding existing community programs such as: Medical reserve, neighborhood watch, community emergency response teams (CERT), volunteers in police service (VI-PS) and other public safety and law enforcement programs. (d) The committee shall act to facilitate communication between Collier County and http : //library.municode.comlprint. aspx ?clientID= 10578& HTMRequest= http %3a %2f %2fl... 12/15/2009 Municode 1641f !1 3 °" state and federal agencies on mitigation activities as well as to enable Collier County to identify outside resources such as grants, training opportunities and equipment. (e) The following working groups may be formed to assist the committee with the gathering of information: (1) Emergency services working group. (2) Volunteer programs working group. (3) Law enforcement working group. (4) Public information working group. (5) Finance /grants working group. (Ord. No. 02 -56, § 4,11-5-02) Sec. 2 -1105. - Appointment of voting members and terms of office. (a) Composition of the committee. The committee shall consist of a broad base of citizens and disciplines. The committee shall consist of . 1 voting me- m�er�from the following community agencies and organizations: (1) Collier County Sheriffs Office. (2) Community emergency response team (CERT). (3) Collier emergency response volunteers (CERV). (4) Collier County Fire Chiefs Association. (5) Civil air patrol (CAP). (6) Coast Guard auxiliary. (7) American Red Cross. (8) Salvation Army. (9) Retired senior volunteer program (RSVP). (10) Collier County Veterans Council. (11) Collier County Business/Industry. (b) Appointment of the committee shall be governed by Collier County Ordinance No. 2001 -555 as it may be amended, or if repealed, by its successor ordinance. (c) Each member shall be considered a liaison between his or her respective agency and the committee. Those individuals shall be recommended by his or her respective agency to the board for consideration for appointment to the committee. Appointments to the committee shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners by resolution which shall set forth the date of appointment and term of office of each member. (d) Collier County employees serving as committee members shall be exempt from the county manager administrative procedure that prohibits employees from serving on advisory boards as it is recognized that it is necessary and appropriate that certain specified Collier County agencies participate as members of the committee. (e) Term of office. The initial terms of office for the committee shall be as follows: (1) Six members shall serve for three years. (2) Five members shall serve for four years. Thereafter, each appointment shall be for a term of four years. http: //library.municode. com /print. aspx ?clientID= 10578 &HTMRequest =http %3 a %2f%2fl ... 12/15/2009 Municode s Page 4 of 5 i 161-1 3. (Ord. No. 02 -56, § 5, 11 -5 -02) Sec. 2 -1106. - Removal from office; failure to attend meetings. Removal from office and attendance requirements shall be governed by Collier County Ordinance No. 2001 -55, as it may be amended, or if repealed, by its successor ordinance. (Ord. No. 02 -56, § 6, 11 -5 -02) Sec. 2 -1107. - Officers, quorum, and compensation. (a) Each year the officers of the committee shall be elected by the membership of the committee and shall include a chairman, vice - chairman, and secretary from among the committee members. These officer's terms shall be for a period of one year with eligibility for re- election. (b) The presence of six or more members shall constitute a quorum. The committee may adopt rules of procedure for the transaction of business and shall keep a written record of meetings, findings and determinations. Copies of all committee meetings and exhibits shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. (c) The members of the committee shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for per diem and travel expenses, only if approved by the board in advance of any such travel. (Ord. No. 02 -56, § 7,11-5-02) Sec. 2 -1108. - Expert consultants. (a) Expert consultants from both the private and governmental emergency services community as listed below are strongly encouraged to attend each committee meeting on behalf of his or her respective employer. (1) City of Naples. (2) City of Marco Island. (3) Everglades City. (4) Collier County Emergency Medical Services. (5) Collier County Health Department. (6) District 20 medical examiner. (7) Law enforcement/neighborhood watch. (8) Collier County Emergency Management. (9) Naples Community Healthcare System. (10) Cleveland Clinic — Naples. (b) Formal appointment of these expert consultants is not required, as each expert consultant is not a member of the Committee, and consequently, not permitted to vote. (Ord. No. 02 -56, § 8,11-5-02) http: //library.municode. comlpiint. aspx ?clientID--10578 &HTMRequest= http %3a %2f%2fl... 12/15/2009 *'n de ,: Pat 5 of 5 3 16 Sec. 2 -1109. - Review process. The Committee shall be reviewed once every four years commencing in 2006, in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 2001 -55, as it may be amended, or if repealed, by its successor ordinance. (Ord. No. 02 -56, § 9,11-5-02) Secs. 2- 1110 -2 -1115. - Reserved. http : //library.municode.comlprint. aspx ?clientID= 10578& HTMRequest = http %3a %2P /o2fl... 12/15/2009 Collier County : Collier County Citizen Corps J 161 Collier County Citizen Corps This 11- member committee was established on November 5, 2002 by Ordinance No. 02- to provide information to the citizens of Collier County and to act as a coordinating agency for the enhancement of activities that support emergency services, law enforcement and disaster prevention, preparedness and response. The committee will assist in the recruitment of volunteers by publicizing and expanding existing community programs such as: Medical Reserve, Neighborhood Watch, Community Emergency Response Teams, Volunteers Ih Police Service & other public safety and law enforcement programs. They will also facilitate communication between Collier County & state & federal agencies on mitigation activities as well as to enable Collier County to identify outside resources such as grants, training opportunities and equipment. http: / /www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx ?page =1441 12/10/2009 Collier Coun 161 Government Communication & Customer Relations Department 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 July 13, 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, JULY 21, 2010 Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, July 21s' 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 Judy Scribner at (239) 252 -3600. -End- r• 1611 'B3 P ORIDA' PA .y ,O N. HEAL , Frequently Asked Questions about Dengue Fever What is dengue? Dengue (pronounced den' gee) is a disease caused by any one of four closely related dengue viruses (DENY -1, DENV -2, DENV -3, or DENY -4). The viruses are transmitted to humans by the bite of a mosquito that is infected with dengue virus. Mosquitoes become infected with dengue virus by biting and taking a blood meal from a human who has dengue virus in their blood. Dengue infections are common and widespread in many tropical countries of the South Pacific, Asia, the Caribbean, Central and South America, and Africa. Dengue virus is related to West Nile Virus and St. Louis Encephalitis virus. What are the symptoms of dengue? The most common symptoms of dengue fever are high fever, severe headache, pain behind the eyes, joint pain, bone or muscle pain, rash, and nausea and vomiting. Many times, younger children and those with their first dengue infection have a milder illness than older children and adults. Many people infected with dengue virus do not develop any symptoms, so a blood test is needed to know if you had dengue or not. People with chronic conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, or congestive heart failure may be at increased risk of severe disease. What is dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF)? DHF is a more severe form of dengue that develops in only a small percentage of cases. Symptoms include fever and bleeding problems. DHF can be fatal if not properly treated in a timely manner. Those who have been previously infected with a different strain of dengue may be more likely to develop DHF. How common is dengue? Dengue infections have become more common in recent years. Up to 100 million cases occur every year worldwide in countries throughout the tropics and subtropics. In the United States, most cases of dengue fever have been linked to the patients' travel to countries that have dengue cases reported throughout the year, every year. Several sporadic outbreaks have occurred in south Texas since the 1980s. Can I get dengue in Florida? A number of cases of dengue are reported in Florida each year in immigrants and travelers to tropical areas. During the summer and fall of 2009, a number of cases of locally- acquired dengue were reported in Key West, Florida. These were the first locally acquired cases of dengue fever reported in more than 40 years in the state. The risk of getting dengue in Florida is considered very low. The mosquito that transmits dengue virus is found in Florida and across the southeastern United States, but the risk of transmission may be reduced in this country by the widespread use of air conditioning and screened windows and doors, as well as statewide mosquito control efforts. How do I prevent dengue? There is no vaccine to protect against dengue. The best way to prevent dengue is to avoid mosquito bites. The mosquito that transmits dengue prefers to live near humans, in our houses and on our patios. . 1611 ■ Use a mosquito repellent that contains DEET, picaridin, oil of lemon eucalyptus, or IR3535. Always read label directions carefully for the approved usage before applying a repellent. • Wear clothes that cover your skin. • Check all screen doors and windows on your home and repair as necessary. • Remove standing water and empty and clean all water holding containers around your home. The mosquito that transmits dengue may lay eggs in vegetation or containers around your home. The eggs develop into flying mosquitoes within about one week. ■ Remove water from old tires, buckets, garbage cans, and containers where water collects. Keep lids or covers on to prevent mosquito from laying eggs in the container. ■ Check clogged gutters and flat roofs that may have poor drainage. • Fill in holes or dips in the ground that collect water. Level the ground around your home so water can run off. • Empty and clean birdbaths, animal water bowls, plant pots, and children's wading pools at least once a week. • Store boats upside down or with a cover. ■ Notify mosquito control if you notice a large number of mosquitoes around your house. What do I do if I think I have dengue? Advise your healthcare provider of any dengue -like illness with fever occurring within 2 weeks of leaving a tropical country. If you live in Key West, call your healthcare provider if you have a fever for 2 to 7 days and a dengue -like illness with symptoms such as severe headache, severe joint or body pain, pain behind the eyes, rash, or unusual bleeding. Dengue infections are diagnosed by a blood test. There is no specific medication for treatment of dengue, but it can be effectively treated with supportive care.. Is the Department of Health (DOH) doing anything about dengue? DOH has a program dedicated to mosquito -borne diseases. Cases of dengue are reported to county health departments by physicians and these cases are investigated thoroughly. The local mosquito control district is notified if there is any risk of transmission to others. Other mosquito -borne disease surveillance methods such as the use of sentinel chickens and veterinary reporting of disease are not useful for dengue but can provide information about related illnesses like West Nile Virus illness, Eastern Equine Encephalitis, and St. Louis encephalitis. The best way to prevent mosquito -borne disease is to avoid mosquito bites. By following the mosquito hygiene checklist and the 5 D's of prevention, you can help protect yourself and your family from mosquito -borne disease. Rid the wrigglers —lose the larvae Mosquitoes lay their eggs where there is moisture. It takes only a few days for an egg to grow into an adult mosquito, which can live for several weeks. During that time, an adult female mosquito can lay many eggs. In order to produce eggs, the adult female seeks a host (such as a bird, a horse, or a human) to provide a blood meal. An adult mosquito can fly about two miles from its breeding site (even further if blown by the wind). Elimination of mosquito breeding sites is one of the keys to prevention. 0 Remove standing water in old tires, buckets, drums or any other containers. 0 Clean out gutters. Check flat roofs that may have poor drainage. 0 Cover barrels and trash containers tightly with a lid or with a fine mesh screening material. 0 Empty plastic wading pools at least once a week. Store them indoors when not in use. 0 Change the water in bird baths and pets' water bowls at least once a week. 0 Empty the water in plant pots at least once a week. 0 Turn over or remove empty plastic pots. 0 Remove old tires or drill holes in those used in playgrounds to drain. 0 Level the ground around your home so water can run off. 0 Fill in holes or depressions near your home that collect water. 0 Pick up all beverage containers and cups. 0 Store boats covered or upside down. 0 Check tarps on boats or other equipment that may collect water. 0 Pump out bilges on boats. 0 Treat standing water with products that kill mosquito larvae. These are available at home improvement stores and garden centers. 0 Fill in tree holes and hollow stumps that hold water. 0 Stock your water garden with mosquito- eating fish like minnows, gambusia, goldfish or guppies. 0 Remove vegetation or blockages in drainage ditches so that water can flow through. 0 Repair screening on windows, doors, porches and patios. A word about "Zappers" Some gadgets intended to work as mosquito control methods do not do a very good job. For example, "bug zappers" do not work well to control biting mosquitoes. They may actually attract more mosquitoes into your yard, and they kill beneficial insects as well. Various birds and bats will eat mosquitoes, but there is little evidence that this cuts down on :he number of mosquitoes around homes. Electronic mosquito devices don't stop mosquitoes from biting people either. The 5 D's of Mosquito -borne Disease Prevention Do not go outdoors at DUSK AND DAWN when mosquitoes are most active. If you must be outdoors when mosquitoes are active, DRESS SO THAT YOUR SKIN IS MOSTLY COVERED. Empty containers and DRAIN STANDING WATER around your home. Use a mosquito repellent containing DEET (N,N- diethyl - meta- toluamide or N,N- diethyl -3- methylbenzamide). Picaridin and oil of lemon eucalyptus are other approved repellent options. *DEET is not recommended for children younger than two months old. Also, repellents containing oil of lemon eucalyptus should not be used on children under the age of 3 years. Avoid exposing your baby to mosquitoes. If you have to take your baby outside, dress him or her in protective clothing and cover the stroller with mosquito netting. ti What is an arbovirus? Arboviruses are viruses spread to people by insect or tick bites. In Florida, we find West Nile virus (WNV), Eastern Equine Encephalitis virus (EEEV), and St Louis Encephalitis virus (SLEV). These viruses are spread by mosquitoes and can cause serious illnesses in people. How do people become infected with arboviruses? An infected mosquito spreads virus through its bite. The virus mainly passes back and forth between birds and mosquitoes. Sometimes an infected mosquito will bite a person or a horse instead of a bird. People cannot catch an arbovirus from casual contact with an infected person. What are the symptoms of arboviral illness? horses: Most people infected with an arbovirus do not even get sick. For the small number who do become ill, it can take two to 15 days after the bite of an infected mosquito before they become sick. Symptoms may include fever, headache, tiredness, dizziness, and confusion. WNV may also cause a rash or muscle weakness. People 50 years old and older are more likely to have brain swelling from SLEV or WNV infections. Anyone infected with EEEV may develop brain swelling. Someone with fever and a bad or strange headache should see a doctor as soon as possible. The doctor may order laboratory testing to see if an arbovirus caused the illness. Although there is no cure for arboviruses, there is treatment for the symptoms. Treatment is important. A person with severe brain swelling might go into a coma or die. What do we do to limit the spread of mosquito -borne illness? Animals and mosquitoes are watched closely for signs of arbovirus. Chicken flocks called sentinel chickens are kept in many counties. Blood from the chickens is tested to look for signs of arboviruses. If virus is found and mosquitoes are biting, mosquito control efforts will increase. Press releases and public education will remind people to protect themselves from mosquito bites. What about other animals? Horses can also become ill from EEEV and WNV. Sick horses are sometimes the first sign that an arbovirus is in an area. Dead birds are another clue that WNV may be circulating. Please report dead birds on the internet site www.myhmcom/bird/. If you do not have a computer, call your county health department or local Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission office. Avoid handling sick or dead animals with bare hands. Are arboviral illnesses common in Florida? WNV was first found in Florida in 2001. Over the years, SLEV has been the most common cause of arboviral disease in Florida. More than 200 people have gotten seriously ill during outbreaks of WNV and SLEV disease. Such outbreaks do not occur every year. Usually, no more than five people a year are found with EEEV disease in Florida. What can I do to protect my family and myself from mosquito -borne disease? At this time, the best way to reduce the risk of getting ill is to avoid getting mosquito bites by practicing the 5 D's of Prevention. THE 5 D's OF PREVENTION • Avoid being outside during DUSK and DAWN when mosquitoes are most active. • To protect against bites, DRESS so that your skin is covered with clothing. Wear shoes, socks, long pants and a long- sleeved shirt. • DRAIN stagnant water so that mosquito wrigglers cannot grow up to become biters. • Wear insect repellent containing DEET* (N,N- diethyl- meta- toluamide or N ,N- diethyl- 3- methylbenzamide). You can add to your protection by applying a permethrin repellent directly to your clothing. Picaridin and oil of lemon eucalyptus are other repellent options. Always read the manufacturer's directions carefully before using a repellent, and make sure the repellent is age - appropriate. i 1 i 1611 93 Tropics Update: July 21, 2010- Page 1 In this update: • Tropical Depression formation possible in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean • Forecast and potential impacts Latest information: The National Hurricane Center (NHC) is still monitoring the potential development of a tropical wave in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean near Hispaniola. At 11 am EDT Wednesday, the "center point" of the wave was located less than 100 miles north of the northern Dominican coast and less than 150 miles from the Turks and Caicos Islands, which is also about 730 miles southeast of Miami, Florida. Satellite imagery from last night and this morning indicate that the system did not develop further overnight. In fact, the system looks much less organized than it did yesterday. Because of this, NHC has cancelled the aircraft reconnaissance mission for today, but NOAA aircraft will be flying an upper level research mission to sample the atmosphere around the wave this afternoon. Both Air Force and NOAA Hurricane Hunters have been placed on stand -by for potential flights into the system beginning tomorrow if it gets better organized later today. However, conditions ahead of the storm Graphical Tropical Weather Outlook t are expected to remain marginally National Hurricane Center Mlami, Floridan *, favorable for some gradual intensification and the National Hurricane Center is still indicating a 60% chance of the wave becoming a tropical depression by Friday. The outlook from NHC this morning stated "Early morning satellite images indicate that the shower activity associated with the tropical wave across Hispaniola has become less organized. Consequently, the Air Force Reconnaissance mission has been postponed until tomorrow. A Tropical Depression is not expected to form today, but environmental conditions are still favorable for some development as the system moves west - northwest at about 10mph away from Hispaniola into the Bahamas on Thursday... Outlined areas denote current position of systems discussed in the Tropical Weather Outlook. Color indicates probability of tropical cyclone formation within 48 hours.. D Low <30% ® Medium 30 -50% ftl• High X50% 1811 Tropics Update: July 21, 2010 -- -Page 2 Track Forecast: This is all good news as it shortens the time window for any development (if it occurs at all). 97L is currently moving west around 10mph and continues to be steered around high pressure spanning the entire North Atlantic and into the Southeastern U.S. However, computer model tracks have been flipping around and shifting north and south with each run due to either a possible weakening or possible strengthening of the East Coast high pressure ridge. Most models still point the system on a general west - northwest course through the Bahamas and possibly over the southern or central Florida Peninsula later this week around the late Thursday night through late Friday night timeframe. It may continue to be steered into the eastern Gulf of Mexico and then northwestward towards the central Gulf Coast around the western edge of the high pressure ridge over the weekend. Intensity forecast: The system will continue moving west - northwest, and all models agree on the system affecting Florida beginning late Thursday night and continuing through the weekend. The question remains: What shape will the system be in? Certainly the delayed development shortens the time window for formation, and also reduces the likelihood of a stronger system. f' �.. 1611 B 3 Tropics Update: July 21, 2010 -- -Page 3 Intensity forecast (continued): The wave is encountering some factors that may inhibit or limit the amount of intensification: 1) 30 -40kts of wind shear to the north and west 2) A pocket of dry air over the Bahamas /Cuba 3) Land interaction appears unlikely. DISTURBANCE INVEST (AL97) Early -cycle intensity guidance valid 1200 UTC, 21 July 2010 70 M 50 40 30 cis U SD 0 20 LL all 17 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 Forecast Period (hr) This plot does notdlaplay atddal stwm wwrnado use for Irflorm tian pwpm" arty. DO NOT USE FOR LIFE AND DEATH DECISIONS[ Wind shear will be the main detrimental factor, so if it survives these impediments, atmospheric conditions could become more favorable for development as it nears the South Florida coast later this week. However, it will not be dramatic and a rapid intensification Maximum sustained winds are currently near 35mph. Computer intensity models are still predicting that this system could be the next named system of 2010, Bonnie, before moving over southern Florida. Depending on the amount of time spent over land, the system may degenerate, which is what most of the models are forecasting. If the system emerges into the Gulf of Mexico and still has some sort of tropical structure, it may briefly have the opportunity to gain some strength. However, atmospheric factors are not expected to be overwhelmingly favorable for development and most computer models keep it a remnant disturbance over the northeastern Gulf of Mexico this weekend. Again, until the system develops, forecast intensity and track models are prone to large shifts and errors. 1611 '83 !. Tropics Update: July 21, 2010 -- -Page 3 Potential impacts: Regardless of development, this system has the potential to impact Florida and possibly Deepwater Horizon Response activities. Heavy rains associated with the system may begin to impact portions of Southeast Florida late Thursday through Friday and then Gulf Coast regions on Saturday and Sunday. Since it is too early to accurately predict the intensity of the system, it is difficult to forecast for winds and waves. in the Gulf of Mexico. At this time, seas of 2 -4 nearshore and 4 -6 feet offshore is what is currently forecast. For South Florida and southern Central Florida, tropical storm -like impacts may be experienced, especially if the system develops. With weakly organized or disorganized tropical systems, the worst weather and impacts are usually not confined to the center of circulation, and although impacts may be minor, they can span large distances from the center. Rainfall will also be a factor, especially north of the system "center" where most of the moisture will likely be concentrated. With a stronger system, rainfall amounts could be in the 3 -6 inch range over a few areas, possibly leading to flooding in prone areas, with most areas seeing amounts in the 2 -3 inch range from Thursday night through Friday night. With a weaker system, rainfall amounts will generally be in the 1 -2 inch range with isolated amounts up to 4 inches. There may still be some minor flooding concerns, but more significant flooding would be less likely and /or confined to isolated areas. Summary: • Showers and thunderstorms associated with a tropical wave over the southwestern Atlantic Ocean near Hispaniola remain disorganized. • This system is approximately 730 miles southeast of Miami, Florida. • Atmospheric conditions may become more favorable for development on Thursday. • The National Hurricane Center is indicating a 60% chance that the wave could become a tropical depression within the next 48 hours. • Computer models are forecasting the wave to continue moving west - northwest through the Bahamas then possibly across the southern Florida Peninsula Friday. • Intensity models predict this system may become a tropical depression or tropical storm. • Hurricane Hunter aircraft is scheduled to investigate the system on Thursday. • Additional information can be found at www.nhc.noaa.gov The next full update will be issued Thursday afternoon Amy Godsey State Meteorologist Florida Division of Emergency Management Amy. Godseyngem.m-yflorida.com Phone: (850) 617 -9121 www.FloridaDisaster.org Fiala Halas REC'ENED Henning AUG 12 2010 Coyle Coletta April, 29 2010 "1 16 11 B4 a :7t C „usiiy ';;ommissioners MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, April 29, 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 SPECIAL 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 (Excused) John Arceri Wayne Waldack ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples Misc. Corres: Date: 0 Beim S. 1 Copies to: 16 1 April, 29 20 l0 I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1:00 P.M. II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Rios moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following addition: Item VIII — New Business — Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Update — Dan Summers Second by Mr. Arceri. Carried unanimously 8 -0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of Minutes None VII. Staff Reports None VIII. New Business Dan Summers, Director, Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services press .-nted a Slideshow on the functions of the Bureau of Emergency Services and an update on the Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The County is monitoring the situation closely and prepared to implement any necessary actions immediately, if required. Collier County does not stock the necessary amounts of dispersants or other materials that may be required to deal with an oil slick of this potential magnitude and will rely on outside Agencies to provide assistance. 1. Naples Beach Emergency Renourishment Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve the Doctors Pass and North Park Shore Emergency Beach Renourishment Resolution, make a finding that these beaches are critically eroded and TDC funds can be used for renourishment, authorize the expedited handling of a truck haul /inland sand source permit modification, waive the formal competitive thresholds in the Purchasing Policy based on a valid public emergency, and authorize the expenditure of up to $1.5M Category A Tourist Development Funds and authorize necessary budget Amendments " dated April 29, 2010 for review. He noted: • At the previous CAC meeting, the Committee recommended an expenditure of $375,000 for placement of 10,000 CY of sand to address eroded beach hot spots in areas south (in front of Gulf View and Indies West condominiums) and north of Doctors Pass (Park Shore Beach). 2 161 IB4 April, 29 2010 • It is now estimated approximately 40,000 CY of sand will be required to stabilize the area for a 3 -year period as it is eroding. • The Biological Opinion issued under the existing permits re- nourishment template requires work to be completed by a May 1 deadline. • Staff is in the process of obtaining a permit amendment and new Biological Opinion. • Staff is recommending (as an emergency measure before the permit amendment is granted) placing approximately 2000 — 3000 CY of sand be placed in an area just South of Doctors Pass, on the dune landward of the current Mean High Water in front of Gulf View and Indies West condominiums. • The remaining 37,000 CY of sand will be placed on the beach at both locations (on the seaward and landward side of the MHW) after new Biological Opinion and permit modifications are issued. Mr. Hendel expressed concern the area just south of Doctors Pass should be deemed a greater emergency than the Park Shore Beach area and requested clarification on why the necessity to address the Park Shore Beach area at this time. Gary McAlpin noted both areas are in need of repair and should be deemed an "emergency." The area south of Doctors Pass is more eroded, but the intent is to combine the projects for an overall cost saving basis and attempt to prevent a possible re- mobilization to re- nourish the Park Shore area over the next year or two, before the next re- nourishment Cycle. The sand placed in these areas should remain until the next re- nourishment Cycle and possibly reduce the amount of re- nourishment required at that time. Mr. Pires expressed concern public funds are being utilized to stabilize beaches on private properties. Florida Statutes require public monies to be spent for public purposes. He expressed concern private property is being re- nourished in areas where the public does not have access. Gary McAlpin noted County Policy has allowed re- nourishment in the past, via private property easements to allow placement of sand and access of construction vehicles. Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney noted the Committee should make a finding that the activity primarily serves a public purpose. Past Attorney General Opinions provide for the expenditure based on that finding. Gary McAlpin will check which areas under consideration for re- nourishment have been deemed "critically eroded beaches." Colleen Greene noted the County will need to review the requirements for waiving purchasing policies under Collier County Purchasing Policies and the State of Florida Statutes. 3 10�1 ►:1 B4 April, 29 2010 Speakers Michael Fields noted the area continues to erode at a rapid rate and expressed concern over the position being taken by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) with regard to the protection of sea turtle nesting areas. The areas in question lacks suitable nesting habitat due to the beach erosion. He noted FDEP's refusal on the County's request to place dredged sand on the beach outside of Indies West and Gulf view last year has hindered the situation. The areas should be repaired before structural damage occurs creating a more expensive repair. Hans Gruenberg, Gulf Shore Property Owners Assoc. noted the property owners in the area support the effort to repair the beaches and the situation should be deemed an "emergency." On a related note the property owners in the area are against using any beach funds allocated to beaches for other purposes. Sarah Wu, Seagate Resident noted at high tide, there is no beach available. Public beach access should be prohibited as their attempts to access the beach may cause environmental damage along the dune area. Mr. Hendel moved to recommend approval of the emergency resolution to stabilize the beach by placing 2000 — 3000 CY of sand proposed for the frontage of Gulf View and Indies West condominiums. Without a second the motion was not considered. Chairman Sorey recommended the Committee review the 6 recommendations provided on page 2 of the Executive Summary and take action. Recommendation #1 Mr. Burke moved to recommend an Emergency Resolution be approved authorizing the use of emergency measures and funds to address this severe beach erosion and that action must be taken immediately. Second by Mr. Raymond. Carried unanimously 8 -0. Recommendation #2 Mr. Arceri moved to find that both the Doctor's Pass Beach and the North Park Shore Beach are "critically eroded. " Second by Mr. Raymond. Carried unanimously 8 -0. Recommendation #3 Mr. Rios moved the emergency re- nourishment is eligible for TDC Category "A" Funding. Second by Mr. Burke. Mr. Pires expressed concern on the possible lack of public access to the private properties where the sand is being placed. The current easements from property 161 1 Bt April, 29 2010 owners only allow construction activities (ingress and egress of equipment and sand being placed). Chairman Sorey noted the activity is consistent with established County Policy. Mr. Pires recommended that as the County moves forward, they obtain public access easements from private property owner's whose properties are re- nourished with the expenditure of public funds. Colleen Greene recommended the motion include a finding there is a public purpose and benefits for the activity. Mr. Rios amended the motion to "the emergency re- nourishment is eligible for TDC Category "A "Funding, and serves a public purpose." Second by Mr. Burke. Motion carried 7 "yes" — I "no." Mr. Pires voted "no." Mr. Pires voted "no" due to his concerns outlined regarding public access. Recommendation 44 Mr. Pires moved the formal competitive threshold in the Purchasing Policy and any other applicable State Statutes be waived based on a valid public emergency. Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 8 -0. Recommendation #5 Chairman Sorey noted the expenditure is for approximately 38,000 CY of sand to fill the template landward and seaward of the Erosion Control Line. Mr. Hendel recommended the expenditure be "$1.5M" as opposed to "up to $1.5M." Mr. Rios moved to recommend an expenditure of $1.5M in TDC Category "A" Funding to accomplish this project. Second by Mr. Raymond. Motion carried 7 "yes " — I "no." Mr. Pires voted "no." Mr. Pires voted "no" due to his concerns outlined regarding public access. Recommendation #6 Mr. Arceri moved to recommend authorization of the necessary budget amendments. Second by Mr. Rios. Motion carried 7 "yes" —1 "no. " Mr. Pires voted "no. " Gary McAlpin noted "public purposes" include concern over possible damage to structures and public infrastructure (buildings, roadways, sewers, utilities, etc.) a. Declare an Emergency Renourishment Situation See item VIII.I 5 16I'. 84 11 April, 29 2010 b. Resolution for Emergency Renourishment Gary McAlpin presented a proposed Resolution (no. 10- ) entitled "A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida declaring critically eroded beaches in the City of Naples to require emer,aency renourishment and making findings to support the public purpose of renourishment for review. Mr. Rios moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed Resolution. Second by Mr. Raymond. Motion carried 7 `yes" — I "no. " Mr. Pires voted "no. " IX. Old Business None X. Announcements None XI. Committee Member Discussion Mr. Hendel thanked Gary and Staff for executing the plantings in front of Le Parc, Park Plaza, etc. and addressing the signs and rope in disrepair in front of the Park Shore condominiums. 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 2:27 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee Jo orey, 11 ,C airman These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended x 0 SEC �'� E AUG 12 2010 1 Vf1 z 1 of 8 M-niQJj 17,2,1M4 Halas Henrnng Coyle Coletta Board of county Commissioners MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE — CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE Naples, Florida, May 20, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Coastal Advisory Committee — Clam Bay Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 P.M. at Conference Room 609/610 of the Community Development and Environmental Services Building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Anthony Pires Jim Burke John Arceri ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Gail Hambright, Accountant misc. Corres. Date: - Ibm CoOes to { 1 17 4 '4 Clam Bay ubcommittee June 17, 2010 VI -1 approval of Minutes 2 of 8 I. Call to Order Chairman Pires called the meeting to order at 1:00 pm. II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management noted the following upd, rtes to the Agenda: Item VI.1 — Correction request of March 18, 2010 minutes, Linda Roth Item VIII.3 — Discussion of RAI comments Item VIIIA — Discussion of Attached proposals Item VIII.6 — Biological Study Update Item IK I - Wanless Report Mr. Burke moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Arceri. Carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Public Comments John Domenie, Pelican Bay Resident addressed the Subcommittee noising the area in the vicinity of the boardwalk for Clam Pass Park contains a large amount of refuse. He provided a detailed inventory in writing (entitled "There may be sonle debris along the boardwalk leading to Clam Pass Park') of the items observed during a site visit. He recommended the proposed improvements to Clam Pass Park be delayed one year until such a time the County can show they can keep the Mangroves clean and healthy. Chairman Pires requested clarification on where the responsibility lies to maintain the area, Parks and Recreation or the Naples Grande Resort Hotel via their lease agreement with the County. Gary McAlpin noted the responsibility lies with both and has discussed the issue with the Parks and Recreation Department, who is addressing the issue. He will provide an update at the next meeting. VI. Approval of Minutes 1. March 18, 2010 Minutes Mr. Burke moved to approve the minutes subject to the following change: Page 3, Paragraph 4, lines 1 -3 - from "She requested the meeting be postponed as the Agenda and related materials were not posted at least 48 hours in advance. She noted..." to "She requested that staff post the meeting agenda and support materials at least 2 days in advance of the meeting. The reason is that this is the ... I Clam Bay Subcommittee June 17, 2010 VI -1 approval 16sl 3 of 8 B4 only opportunity for the public to review the materials so they can make educated comments and contribute positively to discussions at the meeting. She noted..." Second by Mr. Arceri. Carried unanimously 3 -0. Chairman Pires requested Staff identify the minutes as "Draft" when posted on the website prior to official approval by the Subcommittee. VII. Staff Reports None VIII. New Business 1. Peer Review Response from PBSD Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Peer Review Responses from PBSD" dated May 20, 2010 for review. He noted: • The original Peer Review proposal approved by the BCC envisioned a review of the Water Quality Study prepared by PBS &J in conjunction with the Circulation Modeling Study. • The Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) provided a document "Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work — Explanation of Changes from 3119110 Draft — Proposed by PBSD 515 110" which recommended the Peer review, at this point, be limited to the PBS &J Water Quality Study. • As outlined in recommendation #3 below, Staff accepts the recommendation. • If the peer review follows this avenue, it may be separated into "pieces" completed by different individuals with expertise in the related areas under consideration. Discussion occurred if PBSD intends to participate in funding all series of the Peer Review, or only the Water Quality Study review. Gary McAlpin noted Keith Dallas would speak on the issue. Gary McAlpin reviewed the following Staff recommendations contained in the Executive Summary: 1. They accept PBSD list of consultants and add to them staffs list (previously identified and others) and forward them to purchasing for proposal solicitation. 2. Keith Dallas and Gary McAlpin to work together to develop the request for proposal document with purchasing. Once the consultant list is prepared it will be the only individuals that can submit proposals. 3. Accept PBSD modified scope of work as identified in the "Explanation of Changes from the 3119110 Draft" document but add back that water quality expertise will be the primary qualification in selecting a peer review professional for that portion of work. Peer review for other portions of work will be evaluated and selected separately. 4. Approach FDEP with a request to evaluate PBS &J report. Clam Bay Subcommittee June 17, 2010 VI -1 approv of mutes 4ofS ¢ I t 1 g 4 5. Keith Dallas and Gary McAlpin will collaborate on a proposal evaluation document that can be brought back and reviewed by our respective boards by next meeting. 6. Target the activity complete and a proposal on the street by June 15`" Discussion occurred on recommendation 94 and whether FDEP should become involved at that point of the process; or after the Peer Review is completed and recommendations have been set forth regarding management of the Clam Bay Estuary System (CBES.) Gary McAlpin noted if the Subcommittee is concerned over the potential ramifications with involving FDEP, the recommendation could be eliminated. Speaker Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida expressed concern on focusing primarily on a peer review for water quality. The process is moving forward including Biological Studies, Hydrology Studies and Circulation Modeling. The peer review should encompass the data currently being collected for Biology, Hydrology and the circulation modeling. Gary McAlpin noted the peer reviewer will be provided all current data collected to assist in the review process. Keith Dallas, Chairman, Pelican Bay Services Division Board noted the PBSD views the process as two separate pieces, Water Quality and Circulation Modeling. They understand the importance of Circulation Modeling and will be collaborating with the County in funding peer reviews in the area. The PBSD felt the issues should be separated due to their complexity. Mr. Arceri moved to accept recommendations from Staff 1, 2, 3 and 6. Recommendation #S be accepted with the agreement of Pelican Bay's involvement in the final Phase of the process (peer review process). Keith Dallas noted the recommendations in the motion are acceptable. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. 2. Status Letter of Consent — Navigational Markers in Clam Bay Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Status of Letter of Consent — Navigational Markers in Clam Bay" dated May 20, 2010 for review. He noted: • Staff has been in contact with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission who is required to approve the informational markers. Approval is expected soon. • Once the FFWCC permit is received, the RAI comments from FDEP will be addressed. • Once the RAI cycle is completed, the application should be deemed complete by FDEP and a decision rendered. • The Letter of Consent item was remanded to FDEP by the Governor's Office /Cabinet. Clam Bay Subcommittee June 17, 2010 VI -1 approval I&S C 5of8 1j,:- 1 B 4 If FDEP denies the "Letter of Consent," the County will have the option to appeal, but most likely will consider all avenues for placing the navigational /informational markers "exhausted." Sneaker Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group noted the request for informational markers are "Seagrass" type signage. An internal email of FDEP employees indicates lateral aids to navigations are not required. She questioned the motives for the proposed informational markers as they are being combined with the lateral aids to navigation. Informational signs addressing environmental concerns already exist in the CBES. 3. RAI Comments • FDEP Submittal • USACE • Additional Support Required Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "RAI Comments" dated May 20, 2010 for review. He also provided the document "Agenda, Clam Pass JCP Meeting, May 4, 2010" which outlined a history of the dredge permits issued for Clam Pass. History indicates the original dredge template approved in April 1999 was a permitted width of 80 feet and a dredge depth at the mouth of the Pass of - 5.5' NGVD. There were two subsequent modifications in January 2002 and April 2007with the same dredge parameters. The current application is in compliance with previously approved "dredge template." Chairman Pires requested Staff post the original permits and subsequent modifications on the County website for public view. Discussion occurred on the ramifications of non -tidal flushing of the Estuary due to legal challenges which may be undertaken by various parties. In addition, what measures may need to be taken for an "emergency situation dredging" if the Pass becomes "closed" and the County does not have the necessary permits to dredge the Pass. Speaker Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group stated the application for (dredge permit) modification is not the same as the modification granted (in 1999). It allowed a greater width, but not a greater depth. The 1995 Clam Pass Management Plan recommended a long term permit to allow the Pass to be reopened in the event it closes. On April 29, 2010, the Mangrove Action Group held a public forum on the Estuary where representatives from the US Army Corp of Engineers indicated the USACE has the authority to allow the Pass to be re- opened in an emergency situation should it close. It does not take an emergency declaration by the Governor. Clam Bay Su tee un 7, 2 VI -1 approvals 6 of 8 Chairman Pires requested Staff to: • Retrieve all permit modifications from the original dredging permit (issued July 1998) and provide them to members of the Subcommittee along with posting them online for public viewing. • Verification if the USACE can declare an emergency declaration to open the Pass, and /or if there is a separate declaration required by the State of Florida. Mr. Arceri noted, if litigation initiates on the issues involving dredging the Pass, he will make a request that the County provide a technical evaluation on when the CBES may be negatively affected by non - dredging and the requirements for opening the Pass in an emergency. 4. Modeling Proposal Gary McAlpin provided the document "Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study — Phase I — Numerical Modeling on Hydrodynamics, sediment transport and Flushing Analysis Using Delft 3D, Collier County Florida " and Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study — Phase 2 — Numerical Modeling Water Quality Using Delft 3D- WAQ, Collier County Florida dated May 18, 2010. He noted: • The Phase I proposal outlines the scope originally approved by the BCC and previous Clam Bay Subcommittee at a cost of $124,511. • The proposal has been resubmitted for approval due to the issues raised by the County Clerk regarding the Best Value Offer (BVO) program previously being utilized by the County. • The Phase lI proposal is an enhanced proposal, which may be considered by the County at a cost of $68,048. • Staff intends to move forward with the scope of work outlined in Phase I as it has been previously approved the Board of County Commissioners. • The proposals have not been reviewed by the County Clerk's Finance Department to determine if it is consistent with the requirements of the State Statutes for County solicitation of contracts. • The scope of the work was prepared at the direction of the Purchasing Department and solicited under the Purchasing Policy previously utilized before the development of the BVO process. • The item was intended as an informational item; the Chairman received the documentation today and has not had time to review the item. Chairman Pires noted the County Clerk has requested a formal Attorney General Opinion on the Best Value Offer process. The County was requested to join in the request for opinion, but declined. Sneakers Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group expressed concern that the contract is different than approved by the CBAC and CAC, as it now incorporates a scope of work including Moorings Bay. How this change of scope occurred has not 10 t 1 0 t, Clam Bay Subcommittee Jdne 17, 201 VI -1 approval of Minutes 7of8 been addressed by Staff. She expressed concern that the scope of work proposed was brought forth by the original Clam Bay Estuary Improvement Discussion Group which was created in the "dark" and an employee of PBS &J was a member. The need for a Circulation Modeling Study is not supported by previous reports which indicate there is no water quality problem in Clam Bay. Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida requested clarification on the status of "Task 4A" that was in the original scope of work. Gary McAlpin noted Task "4A and 413" have been combined. Mr. Arceri moved to continue the item to the next meeting. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 3 -0. 5. BVO/PBS &J Payment Status Previously discussed under item VIIIA 6. Biological Study Update Gary McAlpin noted the document is still under modification. Sneakers Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida provided an update on the scope of work proposed by the Conservancy in the CBES which will begin in June. IX. Old Business 1. Wanless Report Chairman Pires noted the Report has been reviewed by members of the Subcommittee and Dr. Wanless listed as a potential Peer Reviewer. Speakers Marcia Cravens, Mangrove Action Group expressed concern the Wanless Report was continually postponed for discussion at various Coastal Advisory Committee meetings who referred it to the Clam Bay Subcommittee. The Subcommittee never heard testimony on the report. The Report indicates the water quality conditions in the Estuary are "normal" for a Mangrove environment. Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida provided a summary of Dr. Wanless's credentials noting he is highly respected by peers in his field of study. X. Announcements None XI. Committee Member Discussion Federal Funding Requests Staff has applied for WRDA (Water Resources Development Act) funding for studies in the CBES Clam Bay Sotte 8 of Jun117, approv ute 8 of 8 Oil Spill — Gulf of Mexico Gary McAlpin provided an update on the oil spill. XII. Next Meeting Date/Location (* Per Agenda Index) June 15,2010; 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Community Development, Conference Room 609 & 610, Naples There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 3:22 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee — Clam Bay S#beoingittee Tony These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended it 'f / f 9 RECEIVED la J + 6 411 AUG 12 2010 Halas Henning s oard (71 Cotl,'N i ummissioners Coyle Coletta MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, June 10, 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 (Excused) Jim Burke Victor Rios Robert Raymond Joseph A. Moreland John Arceri Wayne Waldack (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples Misc. Correa: Date: I item Gies to: 1611 # 4 June 10, 010 I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1:00 P.M. II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Rios moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following addition: Item VII.6 - Update on redirection of Beach Reserve Funds to Advertising Second by Mr. Raymond Carried unanimously 7 -0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. April 8, 2010 Mr. Burke moved to approve the minutes of the April 8, 2010 meeting subject to the following additions: Page 4 — Paragraph 8 — Under Mr. Pires comments "Mr. Pires expressed concern on expending public funds on any private property landward of the erosion control line without public access to those portions of the beach. " Second by Mr. Rios. 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 May 2010. He noted revenue collections are below projections for the Fiscal Year. Chairman Sorey requested Staff provide an analysis at the next meeting on the impact of the Department's expenditures based on the revenue shortfall projections. 2. Project Cost Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "FY 200912010 TDC Category "A: Beach Maintenance Projects" updated through June 2, 2010. 3. Emergency Beach Renourishment Approach Gary McAlpin presented the document "Emergency Renourishment Approach/Discussion " dated 6/10/2010 for review. He noted: • It is not anticipated the new FDEP permit for the Emergency Re- nourishment will be issued prior to the onset of "Hurricane Season." 1611 June 10, 2010 • Based on this, the BCC directed Staff to conduct a "two pronged" approach for renourishing the area south of Doctors Pass. • The approach includes "Phase I" - placing 2 — 3K CY of sand on the existing vegetated areas (not in the vicinity of Sea Turtles nesting) adjacent to Indies West. • "Phase II" — placement of the remaining 37K — 40 CY of sand after the necessary permit is received from the FDEP. • The new FDEP permit requires a revised Biological Opinion from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, which is currently under review. • If the FDEP permit is obtained before "Phase I" is initiated, Staff will undertake the original proposal of completing a major re- nourishment in the area. • There will be a site visit on Friday, June 11, with Staff, the public, affected property owners, engineer of record, etc. to be in attendance. Chairman Sorey noted if more than one CAC member is present at the site visit, no communications will be permitted. Mr. Pires questioned the status of obtaining public use easements from any property owners where the sand will be placed on private property. Gary McAlpin noted Staff has not had a chance to address the issue; however it will during the next major (Countywide) beach re- nourishment cycle. Speaker Margaret Grant, Indies West provided recent photographs of the area and requested clarification on the areas the sand would be placed and if any vegetation will be covered with the sand. Gary McAlpin noted the purpose of the site visit was to visually show individuals where the sand will be placed. Not all of the vegetation will be covered, only that necessary to stabilize the area. 4. Oil Spill - Update Gary McAlpin presented a letter from Dan Summers, Director of the Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services to Nancy Richy, City of Marco Island — "Re: Deepwater Horizon Response — Council Update" dated June 7, 2010 and a letter to Kevin Rambosk, Collier County Sherriff from Dan Summers. An update on the oil spill was provided noting: • The County has not been physically affected by the Oil Spill at this point. • The County is expecting the negative effects of the Oil Spill to be in the form of tar balls or a very light sheen as opposed to floating oil slicks. • The loop current moves to the west of the Collier County beaches which will assist in minimizing possible impacts to the area. • The Unified Command (UC) is in control of operations in the region and is located in St. Petersburg. The County is in contact daily. 1611B 4 • For expenditures related to the spill, the County must follow the proper chains of command through the UC to ensure reimbursement of any work completed. • The County is in a "wait and see" mode on the spill and will react immediately when necessary. Under Committee discussion, the following was noted: • The contingency Plan for protecting the inlets and estuaries for the state of Florida will be uploaded to the Coastal Advisory Committee and Bureau of Emergency Services for public view. • Staff will email members the information on the two advertising grants awarded (due to the Oil Spill) to Visit Florida who is advertising for tourism at the statewide level. Mr. Rios expressed concern and lack of confidence in the UC. It is his observation that the various agencies are hesitant to take initiatives to correct emergency situations as funds expended will not be reimbursed from BP without advance authorization. This is hindering immediate responses to crisis situations. Gary McAlpin noted the UC has been responsive to the County. The UC is the required party for the County to process any proposed expenditures to ensure reimbursement of funds. In addition the following was noted: • Any volunteering should be conducted through various organizations as opposed to individual efforts. • The County should consider having consultants on "stand -by" should emergency permits be required to address any environmental issues. Speaker Linda Roth noted the FDEP and the City of Naples have completed advance water quality testing to establish baseline water quality data before any effects from the oil spill are seen in the City. She asked if the FDEP and the County are collecting similar data. 5. Outfall Pipes - Update Gary McAlpin provided a letter from A. William Moss, Naples City Manager to Mr. John Iglehart, Director, FDEP, South District Office, Subject: "Permit File No. 0222355- 001 -X, City of Naples Beach Stormwater Outfalls " dated June 6, 2010. He noted the following: • A FDEP permit condition for the last major beach re- nourishment permit required the City of Naples develop a plan to address the City's stormwater outfall pipes. • The plan was to be in place before issuance of the next major beach re- nourishment project (slated for 2012/13). • At this point, the City has determined the outfalls have not had a negative impact on water quality. 0 1611 !: June 10, 2010 The City continues to address the issue and is requesting the FDEP remove the permit condition from the existing permit. 6. Update on redirection of Beach Reserve Funds to Advertising Gary McAlpin noted at a recent BCC meeting, a decision on the proposal by the Tourist Development Council for re- directing the "2nd million" from the Emergency Beach Reserves to a Marketing and Advertising Program has been postponed until the fall of 2010. VIII. New Business 1. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman" dated June 10, 2010. Mr. Burke moved to nominate John Sorey, III as Chairman of the Coastal Advisory Committee. Second by Mr. Moreland. Carried unanimously 7 -0. Mr. Burke moved to nominate Anthony Pires as Vice Chairman of the Coastal Advisory Committee. Second by Mr. Arceri. Carried unanimously 7 -0. 2. Summer Schedule Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Determine summer schedule for CAC meetings " dated June 10, 2010. The Committee determined to continue to hold monthly meetings. If the Chairman determines it is not necessary to hold the regularly scheduled meeting, it will be cancelled. 3. Marco South Renourishment Plan Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve the attached engineering proposal dated 6/7/2010 from Coastal Engineering Consultants to renourish the Marco South Beaches and investigate if additional or modified erosion control structures would lengthen the renourishment cycle for this beach" dated June 10, 2010 for consideration. Under Committee discussion the following was noted: • Staff is attempting to develop a long -term solution to the "beach hot spot" and lengthen the renourishment cycle. • Any proposed modifications to erosion control structures should take into account the impacts on navigation. • The engineering study should take approximately 6 months to complete and will be subject to Peer Review. • Staff will continue to monitor the beaches and if renourishment is required before 2013, it may be completed as necessary. • There are six tasks proposed in the Contract however there is an option to complete the Contract in Phases. • Phase 1, (Task I, II and III) through the preliminary design phase could be completed at an expense of $200,000, with the remaining tasks (IV, V 5 1104 B June 10, 2010 and VI) returned to the Coastal Advisory Committee for the authorization after completion of Phase 1. Mr. Pires questioned if the County utilized the 4 step process required in the Competitive Consultants Negations Act (CCNA) for proposing the contract? Colleen Greene noted the contract has been prepared in accordance with the CCNA process. Mr. Arceri moved to recommend approval of Tasks I, II and III at a cost of $200,000 with the understanding the Study will include an evaluation for the impacts on navigation. Second by Mr. Rios. Mr. Pires noted an Attorney General's Opinion issued June 7, 2010 (2010 -20) indicated this particular Contract proposal was not completed in accordance with the CCNA. He recommended the County re- evaluate the Contract and return it through the CCNA process. Colleen Greene re- iterated it is the County's opinion the proposed Contract is in compliance with the CCNA process for a "fixed term contract." Motion carried 6 `des" —1 "no. " Mr. Pires voted "no. " Mr. Pires voted "no" because, in his opinion, the proposed Contract has not been completed in conformance with the requirements of the CCNA. 4. Yearly Physical Beach Monitoring Contract Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve Yearly Physical Beach and Inlet Monitoring Contract as proposed by PBS &J dated June 10, 2010 for review. Mr. Rios moved to recommend approval of the Contract. Second by Mr. Moreland. Motion carried 6 "yes " — I "no." Mr. Pires voted "no." Mr. Pires voted "no" because, in his opinion, the proposed contract has not been completed in conformance with the requirements of the CCNA. 5. Wiggins Pass FY 11 Dredging Engineering Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve Wiggins Pass FY 11 Dredging Engineering as proposed by CP &E" dated June 10, 2010 for review. Mr. Rios moved to recommend approval of the Contract. Second by Mr. Arceri. Motion carried 6 "yes" — I "no. " Mr. Pires voted "no. " Mr. Pires voted "no" because, in his opinion, the proposed contract has not been completed in conformance with the requirements of the CCNA. 0 16 B4£ June 10, 2010 6. Change Order No. 3 PBS &J for Clam Pass/Bay Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve the attached Change Order to PBS &J's contract for Clam Pass /Bay required to address additional information requested by FDEP and the USA CE for the Clam Pass maintenance dredging permit" dated June 10, 2010 for review. Mr. Arceri noted the purpose of the dredging is to ensure the Clam Bay Estuary System (CBES) is allowed to properly flush itself. He requested Staff provide the following information should legal action ensue preventing issuance of the dredging permit: • At what point in time does the lack of dredging impair the systems ability to flush itself causing damage to the CBES? • How does the pending litigation affect the County's ability to obtain emergency permission to open the Pass should it become impaired due to a Storm Event? Gary McAlpin noted Staff would provide the information to the Committee. Mr. Arceri moved to recommend approval of the Contract. Second by Mr. Burke. Motion carried 6 "yes" — I "no. " Mr. Pires voted "no. " Mr. Pires voted "no" because, in his opinion, the proposed contract has not been completed in conformance with the requirements of the CCNA. 7. Change Order No. 1 CP &E to Wiggins Pass Engineering Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approval the attached Change Order to Coastal Planning and Engineering's scope of work for additional Wiggins Pass permit engineering required to obtain a new permit for Navigational Improvements for Wiggins Pass" dated June 10, 2010 for review. Mr. Moreland moved to recommend approval of the Contract (at a cost of $49,671). Second by Mr. Raymond. Motion carried 6 "yes" — I "no." Mr. Pires voted "no." Mr. Pires voted "no" because, in his opinion, the proposed contract has not been completed in conformance with the requirements of the CCNA. IX. Old Business 1. Final Version Proposal to PBSD Peer Review Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Peer Review direction as approved by the Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Coastal Advisory Committee at the May 20, 2010 meeting — June 1, 2010 " dated June 10, 2010. 7 16 1:1 B4 June 10, 2010 A letter was provided for review from Keith Dallas, Chairman of the PBSD to Gary McAlpin — Re: "Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work" dated June 8, 2010 outlining the Division's position on the Peer Review. The item was submitted to the Committee for informational purposes and will be reviewed by the Clam Bay Subcommittee at their next meeting. 2. Clam Bay Informational Marker Permit Gary McAlpin provided a letter from Ryan Moreau, Planner, Boater and Waterway Section of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to Pamela Keys, Environmental Specialist, Collier County, "Re: Information Markers Clam Pass /Bay Permit 09 -021 — Collier County" dated May 21, 2010. The FFWCC has approved the informational markers proposed for Clam Bay which will allow Staff to respond to the request for additional information issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the Letter of Consent request for Navigational Markers proposed in the CBES. Speaker Keith Dallas, Chairman, Pelican Bay Services Division noted the original permit required "Canoe Markers" which should be maintained and/or replaced as necessary. Recently the Division ordered new markers and the County had previously requested they not be installed. He requested clarification if they should now be installed. Gary McAlpin noted it is Staff s position, until closure is reached on the Navigational Markers, the "Canoe Markers" should not be installed. X. Announcements None XI. Committee Member Discussion Mr. Pires recommended, as indicated by Linda Roth, Staff engage in baseline water quality testing to assist in determining possible negative impacts on County beaches and inlets from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Gary McAlpin noted the County is undertaking testing of this nature. Chairman Sorey noted the Board of County Commissioners directed the Committee to move forward with a "Public Easement Form." The purpose would be to ensure public access on private lands where funds are being utilized landward of the erosion control line for beach re- nourishment. XII. Next Meeting Date/Location July 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 3:11 P.M. 8 1611 w 011p Collier ty 1 Advisory Committee Jo n y, lit, C airman These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on o�l as presented ✓ or as amended PA RECEIVED AUG 12 2010 6a I j Ju 2 r�ennincj — Coyle — i`nliatfia riaard of C:oUPW L0mM1t'WV -'-1 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE Naples, Florida, June 17, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Coastal Advisory Committee — Clam Bay Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 P.M. at Conference Room 609/610 of the Community Development and Environmental Services Building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Anthony Pires Jim Burke John Arceri ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Gail Hambright, Accountant Misc. Cares: Date: Item k ^pies to: 1611 June 17, 2010 I. Call to Order Chairman Pires called the meeting to order at 1:00 P.M. II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management noted documentation for items 4A1- 4A9 had been provided as part of the meeting packet and posted online. Mr. Arceri moved to approve the Agenda as amended by Staff. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Public Comments David Roellig expressed concern the agenda and some back up materials were posted less than 48 hours before the meeting. It is difficult for the parties to review the information given the time constraints. Gary McAlpin noted the meeting agenda was posted on the Monday before the meeting and in compliance with the Sunshine Law. Chairman Pires requested if possible, staff post the agenda on Friday before the meeting with the backup material being made available late Monday afternoon. VI. Approval of Minutes 1. May 20, 2010 Minutes Mr. Burke moved to approve the minutes subject to the following changes: • Page 6, paragraph 2 — line 4, from "...opening the pass in an emergency." to "...opening the pass in an emergency. Specifically, the County determine: when tidal flushing will become inadequate posing a problem to the health of the Clam Bay Estuary System (CBES), determine the impact of a legal proceedings on the ability to obtain permission to emergency dredge should the Pass become closed and notify the residents on the impacts of a long term delay in dredging due to litigation, " • Page 2 Item V., line 3 from "...entitled..." to "...titled..." Second by Mr. Arceri. Carried unanimously 3 -0. VII. Staff Reports 1. Boardwalk Cleanup Status Gary McAlpin reported the area in the vicinity of the Clam Pass Park Boardwalk has been cleaned up. The vegetation in the area (removal of exotics, etc.) is the responsibility of the Pelican Bay Services Division. 2 1611 B t June 17, 2010 � 2. Oil Spill Update Gary McAlpin provided an update on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico noting the City of Marco Island has met with representatives of the unified command. A memo for James C. Riveria, Interim City Manager for the City of Marco Island to the City Council - Re "Summary of Meeting with USCG Peninsula Unified Command" was provided for informational purposes. VIII. New Business 1. Peer Review Discussion — Update Gary McAlpin presented the document "Peer Review direction as approved by the Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Coastal Advisory Committee at the May 20, 2010 meeting" dated June 1, 2010 and a copy of a letter from Keith Dallas, Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division dated June 9, 2010 re — "Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work. " He noted the PBSD letter addresses the 5 points outlined in the June 1 document provided by staff to the subcommittee: He reviewed the 5 points noting: • Staff is in agreement with point 41 that only the list of consultants developed by the PBSD and staff may submit proposals to purchasing. • On point #2, expressed concern the circulation modeling is not included in the scope of expertise for the individual chosen. • On point #3, the proposal to form a work team including Mr. Pires, Mr. McAlpin, Neil Dorrill and Mr. Dallas to prepare the peer review scope of work proposal for the consultants should include John Sorey, Chairman of the CAC. Committee Discussion occurred on the following: Mr. Burke • Concern the peer review concept has already taken a significant amount of time to develop and involving a work team may delay the process. Mr. Arceri • The FDEP may be a viable option to complete a peer review. • Introduced the feasibility of staff and Mr. Dallas being given 30 days to develop a proposal for subcommittee review (as opposed to a "work team. ") If significant progress cannot be made, an alternate direction may need to be taken. Mr. Pires: Concerns a work team may invoke the requirements of the Sunshine Law. Noted the current proposal, under item #1, includes modeling as consideration for the peer review which should alleviate any concerns that modeling is not in the scope of the peer review. Concern a FDEP peer review may compromise the consideration of any permits submitted to them at a later date. Sneakers 1611 June 17 2 010 B 4 Kathy Worley noted it is her understanding the PBSD wants a consultant that is not limited to "Water Quality Analysis" but can also address circulation modeling. Keith Dallas, PBSD agrees with the frustration over the length of time the peer review concept is taking to come to fruition, and is why the work team was recommended. Mr. Arceri moved to direct Keith Dallas and Gary McAlpin to work together for an agreement regarding peer review and at the next subcommittee meeting report on 3 points: 1. Has significant progress been made on the agreement, Z If so, the date the proposal can be released to the consultants for bidding, and 3. if not, what is the FDEP position on conducting a peer review and when could they start the process. Second by Mr. Burke. Mr. Pires expressed concern on the concept of FDEP providing a peer review. Mr. Arceri noted the motion is for staff to provide the information on the feasibility and timing of the FDEP completing a peer review, not authorization to conduct one. Carried unanimously 3 -0. 2. Assessment Scope of Work Gary McAlpin provided the executive summary "Review and Approve the attached Biological Assessment Scope of work for Clam Bay" dated June 17, 2010. He provided an overview of the document. The subcommittee recommended references to the "Audubon Society" be clarified to identify the particular chapter of the society (i.e. Collier County Audubon Society.) S eaker Kathy Worley addressed the subcommittee and submitted a copy of an email dated June 15, 2010 from her to Gary McAlpin — Re: "Clam Bay Biological Survey Scope of Work 6 -8 -10, " She recommended eliminating the "Total Percent Coverage" concept identified in Task #2 and the terminology should be quadrats as opposed to quadrants. The Conservancy is in the process of completing a benthic study of the CBES at the request of the Mangrove Action Group, Pelican Bay Services Division, etc. She previously provided the scope of the work to staff and will resend it to them for their records. Gary McAlpin recommended the consultants determine if the "Total Percent Coverage" concept outlined in Task #2 is acceptable. Mr. Arceri moved to approve the Biological Assessment Scope of Work as outlined by staff and Mr. McAlpin assemble the necessary information to determine the cost and procurement process of the proposal. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 3 -0. M Ifil 1, 210 B4 3. Modeling Program Discussion /Approval Gary McAlpin provided the document "Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study — Phase I — Numerical Modeling on Hydrodynamics, sediment transport and Flushing Analysis Using Delft 3D, Collier County Florida " and Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study — Phase 2 — Numerical Modeling Water Quality Using Delft 3D- WA Q, Collier County Florida dated May 18, 2010. He noted: • The modeling will assist the county in determining the optimum dredging locations and schedule to maintain the health of the CBES. • Phase I would be completed and if necessary, at a later date the county may choose to complete Phase 2 as a "fine tuning tool." • The cost to complete phase 1 is $124,570. S esker Kathy Worley requested clarification if the data and model will be "validated." Gary McAlpin stated the data and model will be "validated." Mr. Pires noted the proposal does not reference the "validations" and recommended the language be added in the appropriate sections of the proposal. Mr. Arceri recommended the peer review agreement to be worked out by Mr. McAlpin and Mr. Dallas include a peer review of the modeling and indications the PBSD will participate in funding the portion of the peer review as well. Mr. Arceri moved to direct staff to proceed with purchase of phase 1 of the modeling proposal as outlined by PBS &J and Coastal Planning and Engineering at a cost not to exceed $124,511. Add to the proposal language that the appropriate validation of the model will be completed. Second by Mr. Burke. Motion carried 2 `des" —1 "no. " Mr. Pires voted "no." Mr. Pires noted he is in favor of the modeling proposal, however voted "no" due to his opinion the contract was not developed in conformance with the CCNA. 4. Permit — Update Gary McAlpin provided the following documents regarding the joint coastal permits issued by the FDEP/USACE for the dredging of Clam Pass. All documents are available online. He has reviewed all the permits and associated drawings available as well as consulted with the FDEP to determine the historic dredge template. He provided an overview of all of the following permits noting the FDEP is in agreement the dredging activities have been in compliance with issued permits. Any persons wishing to obtain the copies of the original 24 inch by 36 inch drawings may do so by contacting staff. The copies will be at the expense of the individual requesting the information. a. Permit History Summary • 4A1 — Original Permit 5 I W17101B 4 • 4A2 — Modified Permit • 4A3 — Permit Modification Drawings for 1998 Permit Modification • 4A4 — Permit Modification Construction Drawings • 4A5 — 2007 Dredging • 4A6 — Dredge Summary • 4A7 — Current Application vs. Past Dredging Summary • 4A8 — Clam Pass Timeline • 4A9 — Clam Pass Dredging Permit (FDEP & USACE) Speakers Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident expressed concern a letter dated December 15, 1998 from FDEP to Brett Moore of Humiston and Moore Engineers for the permit modification states "Cut 4 will not exceed the previously authorized depths of -4 ft. NGVD and on page 2 of the letter it states "The attached drawings reflect the above modification and shall supersede the associated permit drawings." She requested clarification on how it has been determined the allowed cut for that permit is -5.5' NGVD. In addition, clarification on why the January 2002 permit was for a 30 foot wide cut at the mouth of the pass, while staff contends it is approved for an 80 foot wide cut. Gary McAlpin explained the protocol for a Joint Coastal Permit. The agencies issue a permit for a maximum area of activity (in this case an 80 foot wide cut at the mouth of the Pass). The applicant is required to obtain a "notice to proceed" authorization from the agency. The "notice" requests the actual activity required at that time based on existing conditions. This may lead to some of the confusion on permits or notices to proceed for the dredge activity which has historically taken place. Chairman Pires noted with regard to the -4 foot NGVD cut cited, he will review the documentation to ascertain the reason for any discrepancies between the drawings and written text associated with the approvals. Gary McAlpin noted FDEP is in the opinion they have historically authorized a cut at the mouth of the pass for an 80 foot wide cut to a depth of - 5.5NGVD for a length of 237.5 feet into the pass. S eaker Sarah Wu, Seagate Resident supports the JCP application and is concerned non- issuance of a permit may jeopardize the health of the CBE S. b. RAI Scope Maintenance Dredging Permit (FDEP & USACE) Gary McAlpin expects the request for additional information will be submitted to FDEP within 60 days and the permit may be issued by January 1, 2011 (absent of any legal challenges.) He is the process of obtaining the data for the questions posed by Mr. Arceri regarding the impact of delayed dredging activities. Ce 16 11, B4 June 17, 2010 He provided the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve the attached Change Order No. 3 to PBS &J's contract for Clam Pass /Bay required to address additional information requested by FDEP and USA CE for Clam Pass maintenance dredging permit for time and material not to exceed $69,050 " dated June 17, 2010. He noted it is for informational purposes and was approved by the Coastal Advisory Committee at their last meeting. c. Navigational Markers Letter of Consent for Clam Pass Gary McAlpin provided a letter to Pamela Keyes, Environmental Specialist from Ryan Moreau, Boating and Waterways Section of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission dated May 21, 2010, approving the 9 informational markers proposed for Clam Bay. Also submitted was a copy of a letter from Pamela Keyes, to Ryan Snyder of FDEP - "RE: RAI for the Letter of Consent — File No. 11- 0295- 193 - 002 -EE08 " addressing the Request for Additional Information from FDEP for the County's Letter of Consent Request for Navigational Markers in the CBES. Chairman Pires recommended the information provided to FDEP be revised to: • Under Part II Letter of Consent, #4 provides the most updated 2010 Property Appraisers Imagery as the letter references 2009 data. • Under Part II Letter of Consent, #6, the term "Shallow Draft Vessels" be defined. Gary McAlpin noted the document was provided to the subcommittee for informational purposes and has been submitted to FDEP. The response to the RAI will be amended to include the Chairman's request. Speaker Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident noted the map and the text contain different coordinates for the location of the signs and the locations should be clarified to be consistent. Sarah Wu, Seagate Resident noted the draft of the boats stationed in the Seagate Community has been identified and she can provide the results to staff. IX. Old Business None X. Announcements None XI. Committee Member Discussion None 11 W71010 B4 k. XII. Next Meeting Date/Location July 15,2010; 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Community Development, Conference Room 609 & 610, Naples There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 3:30 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee — Clam Bay Subcommittee z QX Tony tires, C airman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on l as presented or as amended XC RECEIVED 161185 AUG 0 4 2010 June 24, 2010 Board of County Commissioners TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARDFiala . Naples, Florida Halas Henning June 24, 2010 Coyle! Coletta LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Kelly Larry Dean (Excused) Ron Doino (Alternate) Robert Kaufman James Lavinski Gerald Lefebvre Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino Herminio Ortega ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jen Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist Misc. Comes: Page 1 DNe: Fe T l rn �: Copies to: June 64 215 ,x' CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to order for June 24, 2010. Notice to everyone: Respondent may be limited to 20 minutes per case presentation, unless the 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 meeting are asked to observe Roberts Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that 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 record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board will be responsible for providing this record. May I have roll call? MS. DAVIDSON: Mr. Kenneth Kelly? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here. MS. DAVIDSON: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. DAVIDSON: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. DAVIDSON: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. DAVIDSON: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. DAVIDSON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. DAVIDSON: Mr. Herminio Ortega? MR. ORTEGA: Here. MS. DAVIDSON: Mr. Ron Doino? MR. DOINO: Here. Page 2 16I1g5 , June 24, 2010 MS. DAVIDSON: Mr. Larry Dean does have an excused absence. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We do have one opening for an alternate to take full voting rights. The seniority will go to Tony Marino, although Ron will have the ability to participate in all questions and discussions. Okay, agenda changes. Are there any? MS. DAVIDSON: Yes, sir. Under number four, public hearings /motions, A, motions: Motion for extension of time, number three, which is number six from imposition of fines. It's J. Peaceful, Case No. CELU20090010758. Number four, public hearings /motions, letter B, stipulations. Number one, which is number four from hearings, Jorge V. and Caridad Jimenez, CESD20090010253. Number four, public hearings /motions, letter C, hearings: Number one, CESD20090010456, David and Juana Carrillo has been withdrawn. Number four, public hearings /motion, letter C, hearings: Number three, Case No. CESD200900 1 62 1 1, Reuben Estrada, Jr. and Erlinda Carreno has been withdrawn. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And that's all the changes? MS. DAVIDSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there anything to forward to the County Attorney's Office for consent? MS. DAVIDSON: No, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) Page 3 161,. B 5 June 24, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Agenda approved. Moving on to the minutes from last month. Do you have any changes or questions about the minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: If not, I'll entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Okay, quickly moving on to public hearings, A, motions, number 161W '85 04 June 24, 2010 one, Charles D. Brown, for an extension of time. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. Since you are bringing the motion, if you'd like to just recap what you put in your letter and the reason behind it, we'd appreciate hearing it and enter as testimony. MR. BROWN: Okay. I had money problems, and there was a health issue also. And I have complied. I've gotten -- there's like one or two permits I've already got, it's been taken care of. I just need an extension on the other permit. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Snow? MR. SNOW: Well, sir, he has obtained -- the one permit is in conjunction with the window and some interior work has been done. He has obtained that. It was obtained on June 1 st. There's been no inspections that have been attained to this point. However, he has had extensive health issues and some financial issues, and the county has no problem with anything the board wants to do as far as extension of time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And I see in your letter that you request an extension. Do you have a time frame? MR. BROWN: You mean like how many days? CHAIRMAN KELLY: From today, how long do you think it will take to finish everything? MR. BROWN: About 90 days? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Will that be sufficient? MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Do you think maybe we, in case you run into a problem, might grant a longer time frame? MR. BROWN: If you could do that, that would be even better, yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion we grant the 120 -day extension. Page 5 16111 B 5 June 24, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lefebvre. Any discussion? MR. UESPERANCE: There is no health or safety issues at all? MR. SNOW: No, sir, none. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Calling for a vote, all in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: 120 days from today, sir. MR. BROWN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Jean, did you get that? MS. RAWSON: I got it, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Moving on to public hearings /motions, number two. Falcon, Caridad and Jimenez. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can I have you state your names for the record, please. MS. FALCON: Daysi Falcon. MR. MASSIATE: Armando Massiate. THE COURT REPORTER: Could you spell your name, please? MR. MASSIATE: Armando Massiate. A- R- M- A- N -D -O. M- A- S- S- I- A -T -E. Page 6 161V'B5 June 24, 2010 (The INTERPRETER RUIZ was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you would, please, translate for us the reason behind why she's requesting the motion, please. INTERPRETER RUIZ: The reason she's asking for that is she doesn't have no funds, she ain't got no money, and that's the reason she's here for that. She's asking if she can grant an extension to the bank for -- you know, to get up the money and pay for every person that's doing the job for her. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Could you confirm, please, that she did receive the demolition permit, it's been paid for and picked up? INTERPRETER RUIZ: Yes, she has. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And in the letter it says 90 days is what she's requesting. INTERPRETER RUIZ: Yes, she's got it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And she's sure that in 90 days she'll have enough money to remove the sheds and dispose of them appropriately? INTERPRETER RUIZ: She says that she does have sufficient time with 90 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have some questions. This was heard in January of this year, and a six -month extension was granted. I'd like to know what the county feels about this, and then I have a couple other questions. MS. WALDRON: We have no objection. She had quite a bit of unpermitted structures in the back. And she's pretty much removed the majority of it. It's just whatever is left. It's a piece that's attached to the house. It's not -- no one's living in it. But since she has so much to pay for -- to remove all the stuff at the dump and with the Page 7 June 2416 , 2010 B5 canisters and stuff, she's been very limited in money, so we have no objection for the extension of time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further questions? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we extend it 90 days more. Should you have any problems in not meeting the 90 days, we suggest that you come back to the board prior to the end of the 90 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Which she did in this. I second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For clarification, is that 90 days from today? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And Cherie', that was seconded by Gerald. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we're giving you another 90 days from today. Good luck. Okay, number three under motions for extension of time, J. Peaceful. Before we hear the motion, there's a question as to whether or not 161� 5 June 24, 010 B we can hear the motion, due to the fact that it was made within our -- not within our time frame. So let me poll the board to see if we do want to go forward with that. Is there any objections from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Do we have an opinion from our attorney? Jean? MS. RAWSON: Well, there's a time limit for filing these motions in your rules. But I think you have the discretion to vary from that, if you want to hear the case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Which case is this? Is this the one ending in 758 or 961? CHAIRMAN KELLY: This is only 758. This is the land use; is that correct? MR. LEFEBVRE: It's regarding the U -Haul truck. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And so we will move forward then, if it's the will of the board. Any objections? (No response.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Take a vote. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All those in favor of moving forward say aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Thank you, sir, we'll go ahead and swear you in now. Page 9 16 111 B5 June 24, 2010 (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. CHAMI: Good morning. Thank you very much for listening to me the second time for an extension. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MR. CHAMI: My apologies. My name is George Chami. C- H- A -M -I. Thanks a lot for listening to me for the second time. I guess I'm coming -- requesting for an extension of time with regard to the U -Haul permit use. MR. UESPERANCE: Would you put your microphone a little closer, please? MR. CHAMI: I came -- I believe it was this issue was being brought in September of last year. And we invited the whole issue of the Board of Commissioners, County Commissioners, to discuss this issue and to see if my property is allowed to have a U -Haul on it, even if the land use is a C -3, knowing that the U -Haul need a C -5. Now, it happened that Old Cypress PUD has a special wording within the PUD itself where if I have any other uses similar to the use I'm asking for but allowed in different properties, I would be allowed to have it. So this issue was being brought to the County Attorney for more discussion, for more research on this issue. The County Attorney recommended to the board in November the approval for the U -Haul on the property. To my understanding, the staff were in approval. Unfortunately, part of the discussion during the board meeting, it was some past issue with regard to the Town Market permitting, which belongs to 2001. And unfortunately one person from the staff presented false information. And the county -- to my understanding County Attorney, as well as one of the commissioners decided to pull this issue immediately from discussion because many things false and inaccurate and lies were being said at that time during this meeting. Page 10 16D1 b!) " June 24, 2010 To my understanding the County Attorney decide to pull this issue until they make more research on the issue on the allegation being brought by one of the staff member. So I have really absolutely no control on the issue. To my understanding, this issue will be brought very shortly back to the Board of Commissioners, but I have absolutely no control on it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have a date that it's set for the BCC meeting? MR. CHAMI: To my understanding, it was in the next 60 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: But it's not actually been assigned to the agenda yet? MR. CHAMI: Not yet. But I believe, to my understanding it will be brought to the agenda I believe within the next three or four weeks. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can I have the county's position? MR. LETOURNEAU: The county's position is this complaint was lodged on June 20th of last year. It's been over a year that Mr. Chami's been running this business illegally. You've given him a 120 -day extension on top of the original 120 days. He's been running this U -Haul business. Not enough room in this division. I've had numerous complaints since the original complaint. The county's position is we don't want to have the time extended. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. Are you aware of any conversations that are going on currently between the county and the respondent? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, sir, I'm not aware of any. MR. LEFEBVRE: One of the questions I have or comments is in our original finding of fact we asked that the vehicles be moved to a different site while this is pending. That hasn't been done, if I'm not mistaken. MR. CHAMI: Not to my knowledge. Page 11 LPA 2 MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. CHAMI: I've never been aware of this particular request. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, right here it says in the order of the board: The respondent shall cease all outside storage and rental vehicles and equipment and relocate rental vehicles and equipment to an area designated for use such as -- or have the property rezoned to allow for such use within 120 days. That hasn't been done, so -- MR. CHAMI: I definitely brought the issue to the board. And basically it was definitely it was being jurisprudence on it where the PUD, this particular PUD, has a special wording. And the County Attorney was extremely clear on it and recommended to the Board of Commissioners that yes, the county should approve it, they have absolutely no objection to it. Unfortunately, as I'm saying, in November one staff -- and we have to go a little bit eight years back. I was being targeted for the last eight years, and it's no secret to anybody, by two people, and more. And more unfortunately I really feel totally it's an unfair situation for me. The county with two people decide to run a war for me -- on me. And I'm sorry to say it that way. For very simple reason: Just after September 11th, for totally absolutely no reason whatsoever. And they destroyed document, they removed document. Any other person, these people could be -- I don't want to say the word which is frankly exactly what I think. Unfortunately it's no secret to anybody in this particular department here that I was being targeted. Now I was being told by every single person, these two people are no longer here or soon they will be no longer here and that definitely I will be treated fairly. If I want to discuss with you what happened on the other subject, the other subject which will be part of it very shortly -- MR. LEFEBVRE: We're not here to hear the other case. Page 12 B5 June � CHAIRMAN KELLY: The other subject would be irrelevant in this case. MR. CHAMI: So I was being -- during this meeting in November, one person came in front of the Board of Commissioners and told the commissioners that I submitted fraudly in 2001 document not showing gas pumps, I did try to mislead the county, which is totally wrong, and everybody knows it's totally wrong. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir, that's irrelevant to this case. MR. CHAMI: What happened here, they had to pull this particular discussion from the board at that particular time. I'm surprised that Mr. Jeff is not aware of it. And I know Mr. Jeff is not doing anything to help me on this particular things. Because Mr. Jeff basically has no complaint on the U -Haul besides one person which is his friend, his personal friend. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, the -- MR. CHAMI: I don't believe I have fair shake with Mr. Jeff here. MR. LETOURNEAU: I would object to that. MR. CHAMI: I don't -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Objection sustained. MR. CHAMI: Show me what the complaints are, Mr. Jeff. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir? Sir? What I'd like to say is that this board has been fair. MR. CHAMI: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We do not look at you in any other way than just a regular citizen. MR. CHAMI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We did extend an additional extension of the time doubling the amount of time. What my colleague is stating is, in the order you had the opportunity to relocate those units off -site until you had a chance to go to the board and get it zoned or approved through your original Page 13 16I1 'B5 June 24, 2010 zoning. That has not been made. And I think that's the point that he was making. MR. LEFEBVRE: Exactly. MR. CHAMI: I'm sorry, I was not even aware of this particular issue. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's okay. Is there any other questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. Who was the county attorney that is involved in this? MR. CHAMI: To my understanding, is the County Attorney himself. That's what I understood. Basically the County Attorney decided to pull this issue from the next meeting until they found more information about what the allegation will be made in November meeting. And I have absolutely no control on what they are doing at this particular site. MR. KAUFMAN: It would be a lot easier for the board if we had the minutes from that meeting showing the attorney pulled it, et cetera, et cetera. But right now we have nothing to go on. MR. CHAMI: It was being pulled by the Commissioner Tom Henning. And basically it was the County Attorney approved. In fact, he recommended that -- it was been asked if the County Attorney recommend this particular use at the Town Market and it was yes. But what I want to make sure to make very clear, Mr. Letourneau what he said today is totally wrong. We have plenty of space, plenty of space at Town Market. And to my understanding only one person made the complaint. Only one person. I would like Mr. Letourneau to show me where the different complaints are. It's very bad to come in and accuse me here, many people are complaining? Only one person complained. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's irrelevant at this point. That type of -- MR. CHAMI: What am I saying is I'm being attacked by Mr. Page 14 1611.1 5 f; B June 24, 2010 Letourneau for no reason. CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, I don't believe that's what's happening. I see right here that there is an existing order that says that a violation exists. MR. CHAMI: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KELLY: This type of testimony should have been entered back when we were deciding whether or not there was a violation. It's not an issue as to whether or not we feel as though there's enough space. We go by the codes, the ordinances and laws that govern those type of buildings. MR. CHAMI: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And that's what was actually ruled and that's what we have an order on. So if we could go ahead and we'll close the public discussion. Is there any further discussion amongst the board? (No response.) MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to deny the extension of time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lavinski. All those in -- or any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 15 1611 aa$5 A CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, motion denied. We'll go ahead and move this case back to its original spot, which is at the rear of our agenda next to your other case, if you'd like to stay around. Okay, that concludes the motions. Now we'll move to step B, which is stipulations. And the first stipulation is Ramirez (sic). Are they here today? (No response.) MS. WALDRON: Jimenez. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jimenez? Sorry. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. Since this is a stipulated agreement, we'll have the stipulated agreement read into the record by either the investigator or the staff, and then we'll go from there. MR. WALKER: Yes. This stipulation is in reference to Case No. CESD20090010253. The respondent will agree to pay the amount of the operational costs of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of the case within 30 days of the hearing. He will abate all violations by: Obtaining a valid Collier County building permit for all unpermitted structures and additions; get all inspections through certificate of completion within 180 days of the date of this hearing or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed; or obtain a demolition permit with all inspections and certificates of completion and remove unpermitted structure within 180 days of the hearing or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed. And remove such waste to a suitable disposal site. Respondent must notify Collier County Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site visit and inspection to confirm compliance. And that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county Page 16 16.1 B 5 June 24, 2010 may abate the violation and may use the assistance of Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? INTERPRETER RUIZ: Is Mateo F. Ayala. M- A- T -E -O. A- Y- A -L -A. MR. WALKER: And Investigator Weldon Walker. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mateo, if you could, explain to the respondent what was read and ask if he agrees with everything that was just read from that stipulated agreement. INTERPRETER RUIZ: He said that's fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Do we have any questions from the board? Sir? MR. KAUFMAN: Do you know what the zoning is in that area? MR. WALKER: Yeah, it's residential single- family. MR. KAUFMAN: Single family. So this is going to be a single- family when all is said and done? MR. WALKER: That's correct. He will have to restore it back to its original condition. MR. KAUFMAN: Is that unit occupied at all? MR. WALKER: No, it isn't, it's currently vacant. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. So there are no safety issues involved? MR. WALKER: None whatsoever. No electrical, no water. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: We might want to add something in here that the unit will not be rented until -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Rendered occupied? INTERPRETER RUIZ: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I have no problem with that. MR. ORTEGA: It's got to be inspected anyway before you can do anything. CHAIRMAN KELLY: What we like to do sometimes is make Page 17 1611 85 June 24, 2010 sure that someone doesn't move into that. Since it hasn't had inspections, we're worried about the safety. INTERPRETER RUIZ: Right, exactly. Okay, that's -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you could, please explain that, we'd appreciate it. Are there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald, it's your motion then. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement with one addition, that the unit cannot be rented or occupied until a C.O., certificate of occupancy, has been received by the county. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and seconded from Mr. Kaufman. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. Very good. Good luck. If you have any problems, you run into issues, please let us know before the 180 days runs out. Okay, that closes the stipulations. Now moving on to hearings. Number one's withdrawn so we'll 1611 B5 June 24, 2010 go to number two, and that's Mora. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? INTERPRETER RUIZ: Jerardo Ruiz. J- E- R- A- R -D -O. R- U -I -Z. (Speakers and INTERPRETER RUIZ Ruiz were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Since this is a case, you want to read it? MS. DAVIDSON: This is in reference to violation of Florida Building Code 2004 edition, chapter one, Section 105. 1, Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 10.02.06 (B)(1)(e)(i), Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article 2, Section 22 through 26(b)(104.1.3.5.) Description of violation: Several structures on property to include: A wooden shed, metal addition to the wooden shed, a standalone shed in rear of property and an addition made to the east side of the mobile home. Location/address where violation exists: Folio No. 00769320005. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Guillermo Gorostieta and Susana Mora, residing at 17050 Lockhart Drive, Naples, Florida, 34114. Date violation first observed: June 17th, 2009. Date owner /person in charge given Notice of Violation: June 29th5 2009. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 22nd, 2009. Date of reinspection: May 24th, 2010. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. Now I would like to introduce Investigator Azure Sorrels. MS. SORRELS: Good morning. For the record, Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20090010785, pertaining to the violations of several unpermitted structures located at Folio 00769320005, no site address. Page 19 16 11 B5 June 24, 2010 Service was given on June 29th, 2009. Proof of service was received. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Exhibit B, pictures 1 through 8 taken on 6 -- or excuse me, June 17th, 2009. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry. Has the respondent seen the photos? MS. SORRELS: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve the exhibits, county exhibits. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We can look at them now. Just let us know which one you're looking at. MS. SORRELS: If you look at the bottom of the picture, the bottom right -hand side, they're in numerical order. So picture number one, I had made a -- while I was patrolling on June 17, 2009, I had observed several structures on the property that appeared not to be Florida Building Code or the Land Development Code. What you're looking at is a mobile home with an addition on the Page 20 161;.1 B 5 June 24, 2010 side of it. The mobile home was permitted in 1983. The addition I have not been able to locate a permit for. Picture number two is -- MR. KAUFMAN: Can I stop you after the first picture? Does that addition appear to be lived in? MS. SORRELS: Yes. The second picture is just a further picture away to show you that the addition goes down the length of the mobile home. There is an address, 17050. That is not acknowledged by the county here. I think it's just an address that was issued by the postal system. Picture number three is a picture of a garage type shed. The canopy that you're seeing has been removed and the little tiny tin siding on the right -hand side has been removed as well. So what's remaining is the large opened shed garage. Again, after research, I have not been able to find any permits for that structure. According to some -- two of the building reviewers, Jim Fleming and Anthony, they indicated that that would not be permitted due to the fact of the material that was used to construct it. That would be according to the flood level as well, the FEMA flood level that they're in. Picture number four is showing the inside of the shed/garage, the windows, the lights hanging. I did not see any electrical actually ran, they were using extension cords. Picture number four again is just showing the inside of the structure. And if you look over on the right, you can kind of see the extension cord hanging down the wall. Picture number six is just the little addition on the side, which has been removed. Number seven, this was like a little shelter that they had built on the back of the addition on the back side of the mobile home to cover up the water heater and the washing machines. The structure, the roof and the post have been removed. Page 21 16 11-1 B5 June 24, 2010 And photograph number eight is a standalone shed that is in the rear of the property. I have not been able to locate any permits for that shed and it does not meet setbacks. MR. L'ESPERANCE: May I ask a question about that shed? MS. SORRELS: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is that a type of shed that is purchased and delivered, or was it constructed on -site? MS. SORRELS: To the best of my ability, I'm not a professional in building, but it appeared to be a shed that you would purchase and it would be delivered. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. MARINO: I have a question. Is this addition used as a storage room for all these chairs and tables, or is it used as a meeting room with a lot of people in it? MS. SORRELS: I have never seen a meeting room with a lot of people in it, I've always just seen a storage of items. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The question I have is out of these pictures, which one is the one that's still in violation? You talked about ones that have been removed and cleaned up. MS. SORRELS: The -- what's still in violation will be the addition to the mobile home on the east side, the large shed type garage that you saw three pictures of, and the standalone shed on the opposite side of the rear of the property. MR. MARINO: There's another picture here with a yellow car under a carport or -- MS. SORRELS: Yes, that is -- it's showing the front part of that garage. The canopy's been removed. So if you just take that canopy away, you will just see the actual entrance into the shed /garage. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, anything else, Azure? MS. SORRELS: For evidence, no, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. This is an opportunity for you to speak to the issues that we just Page 22 164 85 June 4, 2010 saw and tell us what you think or what's happened, to defend yourself, if you will. INTERPRETER RUIZ RUIZ: The property was purchased like that, that garage that stands there. She said that that's been there for like 40 years something, like since they put the trailers first in. So, you know, that's nothing that they did or built, it's just something that was there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could you explain something to her, please. Unfortunately the way it works in Collier County is regardless of who built the addition without a permit, it's the person who owns the property right now that we have to file the case with, if you will. INTERPRETER RUIZ RUIZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm sorry that you bought it that way, but it was in violation, and because you own it now we have to work with you to correct it. INTERPRETER RUIZ RUIZ: Yeah, well, that's why we're here, you know, to try to figure something out, what we could do, come to an agreement or something as far as what to do. She says she's aware of the situation, and she's tried to look into it as far as getting somebody to knock it down. But the issue is money. To get the permit, you know, just to hire somebody to do it is like 1,500 plus the work to, you know, knock it down, get rid of it and whatnot. And for them -- her only working like half a week and whatnot and he's not working, we were wondering, you know, if since they're not living in the property, they own it but they're not living there, they have to get somebody to do it. And that's the big issue of having somebody else to do it when he's not doing anything. And, you know, if he has time on his hands, then why not let him be able to work with it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. If we can, we'll talk about solutions and time frames in a moment. What we need to do first is to Page 23 16I 1 B,5 June 24, 2010 decide as a board if a violation does exist. Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion a violation exists. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, now we can talk about solutions and time frames and whatnot. What we usually do is we let county read their recommendation and then we can talk further about time frames and steps. MR. KAUFMAN: Before the county, how many people are living in this facility? INTERPRETER RUIZ RUIZ: There was three and now there's only a couple. But at that time there was three when it first started, but now there's only a couple on the trailer side, the mobile home. There's nobody on the addition. Yeah, so there's only one room being used and one couple. MS. SORRELS: All right. If you would allow me, I just kind of wanted to acknowledge that they have not ignored the situation when they were notified back in 2009, of June, 2009. On the 9th of July they did attend a preap. meeting. Page 24 1611 B5 June 24, 2010 And here's kind of where it makes it difficult for them. In this preap. meeting it was determined since the property owners do not reside on the property, they are not able to obtain their own owner /builder permit, so they would be required to hire a contractor. And that's where the money comes into play. We also spoke with Mike Ossorio this morning to see if there's other options for this. Unfortunately the Florida statutes is what really binds that whole issue is that, you know, we can't issue that owner /builder unless they reside on it. So I just wanted to let you know that they have not ignored it, they have made attempts, it's just the money situation. The county recommends that the property own -- excuse me, the respondents to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by -- slow down? I'm sorry -- respondent must obtain all required Collier County building permits, inspections and certificate of completion for unpermitted structures or obtain a Collier County demolition permit, inspections, certificate of completion and demolish the mentioned unpermitted structures within "X" amount of days of this hearing or "X" amount of dollar per day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and 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 or two. The person who is living in this unit right now, they're paying rent, I assume? INTERPRETER RUIZ RUIZ: Yes, sir. Page 25 16 B5 June 24, 2010 MR. KAUFMAN: I'm trying to figure a way out of resolving the situation. As far as the possibility of that person wasn't there and somebody could move in, then you could pull the permit that we were talking about. INTERPRETER RUIZ RUIZ: Yeah, that's why we're -- that's what we asked too if like since I'm her son, me move in, or since they live next door, for them to move in for an "X" amount of time it takes them to do it. And if it would have worked like that. But I guess they said it would have to be more than a year for that to work? MS. SORRELS: That is correct. My understanding from Mike Ossorio, who is the supervisor for contractor licensing stated that if the property owners did move into the property and resided there while the work was being done, after they moved out of that property it would have to be vacant for 12 months. CHAIRMAN KELLY: How long do you think it would take you to get up the money to find a contractor and to take care of this? INTERPRETER RUIZ RUIZ: She says she doesn't really have a time frame, but as much as you can. Because from here to October the season is down from the people, you know, they went up north again. She takes care of the cleaning business. So her work's really slow right now. So she doesn't really know how much time. The season doesn't pick up till October. Yeah, October. So she's only working like 20 hours a week or something, because of season. MR. KAUFMAN: I'm still not clear on what Ossorio said. He said that if they moved in they'd have to live there one year before they were eligible to pull an owner permit, or they'd have to live there one year after the permit was completed? MS. SORRELS: My understanding, and we could always -- if you'd like, I could ask Mike Ossorio to run over here, he's right across the hallway if you want clarification. But my understanding is that the house would have to remain vacant for 12 months after they moved out before it could be rented, if they moved in and pulled the demo Page 26 1611 '85 June 24, 2010 permits as an owner /builder and did the work. MR. KAUFMAN: But if it's not rented. In other words, there's somebody in there now. If they were to leave and one of the family members moved into the house and then they applied for a building permit as an owner, would the permit be granted? MS. SORRELS: I don't have that -- I don't have an answer for you. The only thing I can recommend is someone asking Mike Ossorio to come over here and clarify that for you. MR. KAUFMAN: Because we do have somebody on the board who's somewhat familiar with -- MS. SORRELS: Ms. Petrulli is going to get him right now. INTERPRETER RUIZ: Yeah, because that's what they were saying, since they live next door there wouldn't be a problem for them moving, you know, if it takes three months or whatever long it does. He's not working, him being there, he's got all the time in the world to do it, you know. Yeah, because if there's a problem of them renting it, they would rather, you know, let them know and lose that little bit of money. But him being able to do it at the same time. He's losing that money, but he's actually saving it too by allowing him to do the work. Yeah, so -- because the rent is not even much, it's like 250 because it's a couple. And work's slow right now. So if it causes them to let them leave and them move it in, it's going to save them money eventually, so -- MR. ORTEGA: Who's the owner of the property? INTERPRETER RUIZ: They both are. MR. MARINO: If that was to happen, do they have the money to pull the permit? INTERPRETER RUIZ: Yeah, because they said just to knock it down if they were to get the permit themselves, it's like 80 bucks or something like that. Whereas if you contract somebody, it's like 1,500 for the license and all that. So yeah, they would have it. Page 27 1611 B5 June 24, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: If we can get you to hold on one second. Cherie', would you like to swear Mike in. (Mr. Ossorio was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hey, Mike. We were wondering -- MR. OSSORIO: Good morning, Mr. Kelly. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- if you could clarify for us the situation. They live next door. They want to move into the home that they also own. They want to stay there while they fix up and get it into compliance. But then there's an issue about the one -year residency clause. What does that mean exactly? MR. OSSORIO: Well, the state's actually been pretty clear. This is State Statute 489 under the owner /builder exemption. Basically says when an owner comes in for an owner /builder permit for a substantial use or an owner /builder use, he or she must sign an affidavit. It's a pretty lengthy affidavit. I'm going to hire a licensed companies (sic), I'm going to make sure that I do the work myself, I'll make sure it meets to code, all those kind of things call into play. Also, the law also says that when you do pull an owner /builder permit, you inherit some responsibilities. You have to live in it and you can't sell it or rent it 12 months of C.O. And that basically tells the homeowner that listen, I'm going to invest in this property, do an owner /builder and I'm going to live in it. So the state legislature wants to make sure that, you know, you're going to build something that you're going to live in, not to sell. Because if you do sell it within 12 months, that is prima facie evidence that you are working without a license. And typically we issue stop work order and we issue some penalties and so forth. In this particular case since the owner lives next door and it's going to be rented, therefore they wouldn't qualify for an owner /builder. However, if the owner decides to say well, we're not going to rent it, we're going to pull them out and not rent it from 12 Page 28 161 :1 95 0 June 24, 2010 months of C.O. and do all the necessary arrangements of getting the building permits, getting the demolition permit, getting the necessary contractors with necessary skills to do the work, then they can apply for a building permit. However, if they do put a for sale sign or say they got an owner /builder permit and then all of a sudden we drive by and there's a big for rent sign, well that is prima facie evidence that they're working without a license, and we issue penalties to the homeowner and we also issue what you call stop work order and so forth, and then we'll go ahead and take the permit away and make an affidavit of compliance. In other words, they would have to get an engineer and architect to say this meets proper code and get a necessary contractor to get -- to facilitate to get the building permit. So that's how it typically works. MR. ORTEGA: I have a question, if I may. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Go ahead. MR. ORTEGA: If they're going to move into this structure, it's their property, they're not going to sell it, they're not going to rent it for a year, what's stopping them from getting a demo permit now once they move in there? MR. OSSORIO: Well, when I had a conversation with these gentleman and this young lady, I asked her if she was going to rent it, she said yes. So therefore it wouldn't work. Now, if she changes her mind, obviously, you know, she changed it from the hallway to here, now she's not going to rent it, well, we have to have confirmation that she's not going to rent it. But my only issue is is that if she's -- getting the owner /builder permit's one issue. It's not a big deal. The problem is is knowing how to actually do the demo. Getting the contractor shouldn't be that difficult. But I don't know if she has the skills or necessarily the equipment to get the owner -- get the demolition, do the work and whatnot. So it might be just better just to get a contractor and get it Page 29 161E.1 B5 N' June 24, 2010 done and get it properly C.O.'d according to Florida Building Code and then be able to rent it out within that one year. But that's her call. MR. ORTEGA: Living in a perfect world that would be the way to go. But in this case there's a financial situation. There's nothing stopping the owner from performing the work himself. This is a demo permit. I'm assuming it's a demo permit, right? So in this case I think that he can do it legally, as long as he doesn't rent it or sell it for a period of a year. MR. OSSORIO: You're absolutely right. But my recollection was in the last hour -- MR. ORTEGA: Right. MR. OSSORIO: -- that she was going to rent it. So therefore the owner /builder was off the table. So the only course would be just get a particular contractor, a demo contractor to get the necessary building permits to get it completed so therefore she could rent it out. Because obviously it is a rental property, and obviously it is for income and it is for an investment. So typically in those three categories you deal with contractors, not owner /builders. MR. ORTEGA: Does the board understand what just occurred here, that they can do it? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Another quick question for you -- MR. MARINO: I'd like to make one thing clear. They can have the renter move out, they can move in, and they can pull the permit. As long as they do not sell it or rent it for a year, he can start doing this next week if he wanted to -- MR. ORTEGA: That's correct. MR. MARINO: -- is that correct? MR. ORTEGA: That's correct. MR. OSSORIO: Well, they wouldn't even have to move in. Page 30 16 11 85 R4 June 24, 2010 They just couldn't rent it. Just because of an owner, it doesn't mean that -- the statute doesn't say you have to live in it, it just says you can't rent it. So I can be -- I can have three properties and I could theoretically not live in one and not choose to rent or sell it for 12 months of C.O. But then it really leaves the point you can't live in two houses and one house is vacant. So you just -- you know, owner /builder wouldn't apply. Okay? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Do you understand what has just taken place? INTERPRETER RUIZ: Yes, sir. So if he -- MR. KAUFMAN: So you don't rent it and somebody -- you don't even have to move into it, as long as you get the renter out of it INTERPRETER RUIZ: For a whole year. MR. KAUFMAN: -- for one year, then you can do the work. Which if they're paying $200 a month and it cost 1,500 or $2,000 for the demo and you're not working anyhow, that probably would be -- INTERPRETER RUIZ: It works out either way. It cancels the -- that's what I'm saying, it would actually be good for them to have the people leave. Because he's saving what he's going to pay somebody to do it what he's going to get in the rent anyways. MR. KAUFMAN: Mike, you understand what I said and what they said and everything? MR. OSSORIO: Oh, I understand. Right now it is rented. So therefore when they move out, we get a confirmation that they move and they sign the affidavit and get the necessary drawings and engineering per the code, they can surely submit for an owner /builder permit. They sign an affidavit saying they won't sell it 12 months of C.O. And if they do, and if it is rented, well, then the course is clear, they're in violation of the statute. But fortunately they know the statute, so we're on the same page. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, great. Page 31 l �� §Uln�e;4, P15 MR. OSSORIO: Well, it was a pleasure. MR. KAUFMAN: I guess it's up to us now to figure out how much time would be needed to do it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, let me ask one more question, Mike, if you will. Anything stopping them from getting a GC to pull the permit, he does the work himself underneath the GC and then just has the guidance from the contractor? MR. OSSORIO: Well -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's just a demo. MR. OSSORIO: Yeah. And that -- well, let's talk about that for a minute. If you're saying that a general contractor or a demo permit or a residential builder or building contractor, one of the three or four pulls the necessary building permit and then the contractor basically says well, the homeowner's responsible for "X ", is going to be doing this item. Take painting. Well, I typically wouldn't have a problem with an owner doing his own painting and doing his own tiling and the general contractor building this structure. However, if the general contractor pulls a building permit and the work is substantial, in other words they're going to be doing the electrical and knocking down a lot of these items and demolition per the Florida Building Code, that's really not nonsubstantial, and that's really considered an owner /builder. So owner /builder would come in to play again. They would have to come in, sign for an affidavit that says yes, the general contractor pulled the building permit. However, the owner's doing the work, so it's kind of moot. Why not the owner just come in, get an owner /builder permit. Why pay a general contractor for the extra expense. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Thanks, Mike. MR. KAUFMAN: In this particular case the electrical in there is, Page 32 1611 B5 M June 24, 2010 from what you've seen -- INTERPRETER RUIZ: There's none. MR. KAUFMAN: -- extension cords. INTERPRETER RUIZ: Yeah, there's none. CHAIRMAN KELLY: But there is walls. INTERPRETER RUIZ: No, the extension cords are not even in the wall. So there's -- if you just pull all the extension cord out and no electricity -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess the question I have is let's say hypothetically they go in, get a C.O., in three months from now they get a C.O. under a builder -- not building, an owner permit and three months later, six months from now they're renting it. That's prima facie evidence, I guess, that they're -- they're violating the contract. INTERPRETER RUIZ: Violating pretty much the contract. MR. LEFEBVRE: So then that would be a whole different -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Now would be a good time to let you know that if that did happen, contracting without a license is a third degree felony in the State of Florida. INTERPRETER RUIZ: Yeah, that's fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So you're going to have to let that -- INTERPRETER RUIZ: Move for a whole year. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- or let it sit for one year after the work's completed. INTERPRETER RUIZ: Yeah, if we're able to do that. She says now she figures out 120 days, like 30 days notice to give the people, you know, to let them out. And then the other 60 days to go ahead and get a dumpster and get rid of everything. MR. MARINO: I have one question. INTERPRETER RUIZ: Yes, sir. MR. MARINO: When you tear that building down, the side of the trailer, is there just an entry door into it or is that whole wall out? INTERPRETER RUIZ: No, it's -- the trailer's still there, it still Page 33 ,une�¢IJ B 5 got its walls and stuff. It was supposed to be I think a screen porch. But like I said, it was built like that when we first got it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. About the eviction, if the tenant doesn't willingly leave, it will take you 90 days to garner an eviction process, and then you need another 60 on top of that. So that's 150 days, according to my numbers. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion. I think we drew this out quite a bit. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: And I think it's up to them on how they want to handle it. They know the repercussions. I think we should go with paying the operation cost of $81.43 within 30 days and give you 180 days to get the C.O. And whatever you do after that, there's other repercussions which way you go, or have a fine of $150 a day. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a motion. We're accepting county's recommendation with 180 days and $150 per day, correct? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Kaufman. Any discussion? (No response.) INTERPRETER RUIZ: Yeah, she said that's fine. 100 days will be fine. And even after that, after they get the problem squared out and whatnot, to keep the one year vacant. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 34 16JiB5 " June 24, 2010 MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it's 180 days. Six months. INTERPRETER RUIZ: 180 days. Six months. From today, right? CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's correct. INTERPRETER RUIZ: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Good luck. MS. SORRELS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hey, remember, if you have any problems, let us know before the time expires. INTERPRETER RUIZ: To get the homeowners permit where -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're in the right building, it's right up front. Get with Investigator Sorrels, because you do have to pay that fee of $81 within 30 days. So I would pay that as soon as possible. INTERPRETER RUIZ: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, that was our only case. Now moving on to old business. The first one is E.J. Properties, for an imposition of fine. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MR. CASTANO: My name is Javier Castano. That's J- A- V- I -E -R. C- A- S- T- A -N -O. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Real quick, you're a registered agent of E.J. Properties, correct? MR. CASTANO: That's correct -- well, no, I'm sorry, I'm not. I do have a letter to represent E.J. Properties. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you enter that into evidence, the court reporter will take that and you won't get another copy back. Is that okay? Page 35 16 ii��F B5 June 24, 2110 MR. CASTANO: That's okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. And since this is an imposition of fine and you've chosen to attend, usually means that you'd like to speak to that. If you'd like, just go ahead and tell us plainly, you know, why it took longer, and if you're requesting a reduction or even an abatement of the total fine you could ask for it and we can entertain it. MR. CASTANO: Yeah. I am asking for the fines to be eliminated, all of them, if possible. I came into this job. The person that originally was going to do the job died unexpectedly. He was 47 years old. So when I was contacted, we had problems getting into the -- accessing the units and things like that. Finally we did get a -- we applied for the permits on March 3rd. We were issued the permits on the 19th of March. And we did receive a C.O. or certificate of completion on the 27th of May, which is about 30 days late. I will say that, you know, we had a great deal of obstacles. Theft on the property, damage, more damage to the property than what was originally there because the property was vacant. And I'm not sure why, and this might be maybe a legal thing, but I'm not sure why the county or why the code enforcement does a C.O., a by C.O. date. I really feel that the permits were issued, and once you receive permits you have a 60 -- six month per inspection. So I'm not real sure why the county does it that way. May be -- like I say, may be a legal or an ordinance thing. But I do believe that, you know, they weren't in compliance -- we didn't get compliant with your order on time, but I think we had the permits in hand. Ed -- the issue was based on five units that were altered without a permit. Unfortunately the county forced us to pull permits on every unit and have every unit completed, 16 units, instead of the five. And we Page 36 June P 65 had problems with the Lee County Co -op getting electric in order to get the final fire inspections. And, you know, small issues that you just face every day. And, you know, I think we got the job done, it looks good, it's a safe place. It's needed over there. And I hope that you'll side with us. And by the way, we did pay a great deal of permit fees. We did pay all our fees that were required by code enforcement, and we ended up paying almost $5,000 in permit fees that should have been about $1,500. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I can appreciate your recommendation to go by the permit time frame, since their default to six months unless requested otherwise. But sometimes we run into public safety and health issues where we need that time frame a little shorter. And that's why we set our own date and we require it by C.O. Because as a board we're not professionals out in the field looking at these, so we use the county's own investigators and that C.O. as the date to judge all of our paperwork by. MR. CASTANO: Yeah, it probably makes sense but, you know, many times I look at, you know, some of these issues that I saw today where there's nobody living in these units, and if there's no one living there -- and I think if you're working toward getting a C.O. And money is an issue. Even with people with money, money's an issue. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you can see we are pretty lenient. MR. CASTANO: Yeah, you guys are awesome. That's the word. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator Snow, any objections from the county? MR. SNOW: No, sir, the county has no objections. Factually he stated what had happened on the property, that the registered owner met an unfortunate demise. They have tried to gain compliance and it was extensive what they had to do and they got it done as quickly as they could. Page 37 16185 June 24, 2010 Just to address the board, a lot of times when the board requires somebody to get a permit and a C.O., the reason it's done is because if it's not required, the C.O., the board does not have the satisfaction that that C.O. is completed, that the whole process is completed. And that's the reason why the time frame and why the C.O. is required with the inspections. The permit is only the first step. The C.O. is the final step. And that's the reason this board requires that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very well said. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to abate. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second by Gerald. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: attention. it. Any opposed? Great. All done. Thanks for your MR. SNOW: Thank the board. MR. CASTANO: Thank you very much. We really appreciate CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next is going to be Moran, Manuel and Anna Moran. (Speakers and interpreter were duly sworn.) Page 38 16 d 185 `A June 24, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. Like you saw just in the previous case, very similarly, in this case I'm just going to verify real fast, have they not come into compliance yet? MR. BALDWIN: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so it's still out of compliance. It's a little bit different. Typically our board will not reduce, abate or hold off any fines unless the building is actually in compliance, meaning you fixed all the problems. And from what the investigator's saying, that's the situation here today. If you'd like, you could speak to the issues or any problems that you're having, you can speak plainly. MR. MORAN: We tried to do everything like the county say, but we got a lot problems with the house. My house is foreclosure. I fight with the bank for a couple of months or years. And right now I got a paper here say the house will be sold on June 28th, in four days, will be sold in the auction. I got a paper here. And I tried to sell my house and I contract a lawyer to see if they can stop the sell on the auction. We get the permit and we still working on it. I not -- I not sure if I gonna keep it, but we still working on it. We just did the spot survey yesterday with the company. And they gonna give us by Monday. At least Wednesday. And we just need to finish two more inspection. We tried to do it, but the money, I can't use it for something, I can't stop it to try to save the house first. I can do nothing. MR. MORAN, JR.: He just ran a little short of money. That's why we ran out of time the way we did. But the spot survey was done yesterday. They're going to ship it to us tomorrow. We get it Monday and then we get I think it was the two or three other C.O.'s -- C. 0. done and that's it. We just need a little bit more time and we'll get it done. Page 39 1611 65 ' June 24, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: What is the county's position? MR. BALDWIN: We have no position in this matter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Have they been working diligently, as far as you've seen? MR. BALDWIN: This was a previous case by another investigator. I came in. Since I've come into this case, yes, they have, from what I have seen. They -- like they said, they were on the phone with the survey company earlier today, and there are only three inspections that need to be completed. It's the finish floor elevation, the final building and the 10 -day spot survey. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Let me put this to the board then. A unique position with the foreclosure right around the corner, potentially, and the fact that they may in fact come into compliance shortly as well. My concern, you know, to speak freely to the board is this property is sold at auction along with code violations, you know passing onto yet another owner. Even if it's the bank. But evidently, you know, if that doesn't get caught, it will go on to another owner. And then the other fact that we don't abate or lower fines unless there is compliance. So I would say if it was our position, if that was the case, we'd ask county maybe to pull it for another month. But, you know, we're right up against that foreclosure. So I'm interested in open discussion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, the question I have is it's already recorded on public records, correct, that there's a case? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. If we have an order at this point that let's say we deny the extension or deny imposition of fines, chances are you probably won't even have it signed and recorded by the 28th, correct? Page 40 16 1 �;1 8 5 ' June 24, 2010 MS. RAWSON: It's Monday, isn't it? Maybe not. MR. LEFEBVRE: Because by the time the order's all completed -- so the bank's going to know, or whoever buys this house is going to know that there is some kind of lien on it through the county. MS. RAWSON: The original order was recorded, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. So to go ahead and file an imposition of fines I think -- is it pretty moot at this point to do it? MS. RAWSON: Well, somebody might owe $5,400. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, they're going to owe it no matter what. MS. RAWSON: Well, but you haven't imposed it yet. There's an order out there. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But what I'm trying to get at is the order is going to be -- let's say we impose it. It's not going to be recorded by the time it goes to foreclosure, correct? How does that affect -- I'm sorry. MS. RAWSON: The imposition of fines won't be recorded by the time -- if it was foreclosed on Monday. But the original order is. And I still think that they probably would be able to collect the fines, work something out with the bank. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to ask the county to withdraw this till the next meeting, if -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, that's one. MS. RAWSON: Let Ms. Waldron comment. MS. WALDRON: I understand that there's a sale date for this property, but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily going to go through on the 28th. And just take that into consideration at this point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The county stated they don't have a position. So we would have to request and ask very nicely, if that's the will of the board. It would have to be the consensus of the board to ask that. MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah, my point on that is that they are working diligently to try to get something done. The foreclosure's Page 41 16 E 1 B5 P,-A June 24, 2010 right at the door step. And I don't think anything would be served by imposing the fine now. I think given enough time, maybe next month to come back and maybe a lot of this will be sorted out one way or the other. Nothing is stopping; the fines continue to accrue. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can I ask a question? Do you think that you'll have this fixed by next month? MR. MORAN, JR.: I think so. I think so. I mean, all we have to do now is just get the inspections done. Because we already got the spot survey. That's what took us a long time. But I think so. We'll try our best. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's all irrelevant. Because if technically there is a sale on the 28th -- MR. MORAN, JR.: Yeah, but we won't be out of the house for in a month. They can sell it and they might sell it on the 28th. MR. LEFEBVRE: They might sell, but then -- MR. MORAN, JR.: If they do sell it on the 28th, he's not going to be out of there in a month. It's going to take longer than that -- MR. MORAN: Two or three months. MR. MORAN, JR.: -- according to the lawyers, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: But what's the point at that if you no longer -- MR. MORAN, JR.: It's better to take care of the problem and fix it than to pay all the fines. MR. LEFEBVRE: But you won't have to -- well, okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, what is the will of the board, if we can poll by maybe a raise of hand, how many people want to ask the county to withdraw this? And then if not, then we'll move for a motion to either -- I guess to impose the fines, if not. So those who want to forward it to request the county to remove it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (Indicating.) MR. UESPERANCE: (Indicating.) MR. KAUFMAN: (Indicating.) Page 42 June 24, 2010 MR.ORTEGA: (Indicating.) 1611 B5 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, that's four against three. I guess we can ask pretty please, if you want to withdraw it for a month. MS. WALDRON: The county can withdraw this case to be brought back at the next Code Enforcement Board meeting in July. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So what we've done is we've just taken this completely off the case. We don't want to make a decision today, okay? If you fix everything and it's C.O.'d and it's all in compliance, next month there wouldn't be a need to bring this to us, if you will. You know what I mean? MR. MORAN, JR.: Yeah, I understand. All right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Or would there? I'm sorry, there would be. MS. DAVIDSON: There will still be fines owing -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: There would be still fines, i'm sorry. So if you were to come in front of us next month, then we can look at this and say okay, you know, everything's taken care of, maybe we'll reduce the fines, or possibly abate them completely. MR. MORAN: Take care, everybody. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, next case is Lambert Trust, Revocable Trust. Is there anyone here for the Lambert Trust? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And we have two cases on this one. We'll do the first one ending in 15238. And basically without having to read everything in, they have not complied and they have not paid the operational costs, correct? MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Page 43 Li i•. JA 1,4-, O1 u Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. MS. WALDRON: Just for the record, can we state the dollar amounts? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, let's do that. Sorry. You want to read it, Azure? MS. RAWSON: Let's swear her in to read that. We do need to have this on the record before I write the recorded. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. SORRELS: The bottom part, starting at the fines and cost to date are described as follows: Order item number one and two, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between May 25th, 2010 to June 24th, 2010, 31 days, for the total of $6,200. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number five, operational cost of $81.72 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $6,281.72. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. And now we'll move to the second case, which is CESD20090015248. And do you need to re -swear her in because it's a separate case? MS. RAWSON: I would. Page 44 �61 z 1�5 h 24, (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to read it, please. MS. SORRELS: Absolutely. 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 May 25th, 2010 to June 24th, 2010, 31 days, for the total of $6,200. Fines continue to accrue. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MS. WALDRON: Hold on, there's more. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're really excited about the Sunshine Law. Really excited. Sorry, Azure. MS. SORRELS: That's okay. Order item number five, operational costs of $81.72 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $6,281.72. I'm done. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. SORRELS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Okay, Mr. Chami. Next is J. Peaceful, and we'll start with Page 45 161-1 B5 June 24, 2010 CESD20090012961. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, Mr. Chami, since you're here to represent yourself, I would assume that you'd like to speak to this case. And we're only on this one, and then we'll go to the next one. MR. CHAMI: This one I guess is the one for the pass - through and the different construction, I believe. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jeff, would you like to confirm which one's which? The second one's the land use, which is -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, this is the case dealing with the ramp and the doorway permitting. MR. CHAMI: Thank you very much. First of all, I would like to apologize if I was little bit more -- on the previous time I was talking I was little bit too emotional. Because frankly, it is at some times trying to get -- you reach a level where you're really fed up of certain things happening and you feel like you're totally useless. But anyway, I really apologize for what -- for my behavior. With regard to this particular one, basically in -- can I go a little bit on history a little bit on this particular issue, if you don't mind? On May 15, 2009, my tenant, who was a pool store, applied for a permit. The permit number is 2009051495. This particular permit was being submitted as I said on May 15, 2009, was being found basically on -- the permitting technician (sic) was being complete, was the site plan review was being complete and approved, the fire review customer service was being done, the current plan review was rejected, for a reason nobody knows, frankly. I really mean it, nobody knows why. Architectural review was being rejected, nobody knows why. Engineering was not necessary. And structural plan review commercial was being approved and complete. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, now, can I stop real quick. I just want to confirm with county. Page 46 1641' B5 s June 24, 2010 Jeff, what Mr. Chami is saying is that the permits were applied for but they have not been picked up; is that correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: They were applied for. They got rejected for a couple of reasons, and that was back in May 28th, 2009 they were rejected. And then I checked this morning and there hasn't been any other action on his permit since that -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: That was my second question. Because this is -- the noncompliance was filed back in February. So up until this morning they still have not been picked up? MR. LETOURNEAU: They can't pick them up until they get -- till the permit's in ready status. So they have to deal with whatever they were rejected for, get that fixed. The permit will be in ready status, they get it issued, then they go for the C.O. at that point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So we're just confirming, it's not in compliance? MR. LETOURNEAU: We are confirming it is not in compliance, yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Mr. Chami, what happens in these situations is because we're not in compliance we can't reduce the fines, because that will go against our original order. MR. CHAMI: Absolutely. But just if you can be patient with me for two minutes, please. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. MR. CHAMI: This particular -- on May 5th (sic) we apply for the permit. It was being applied through a company called Nova Permitting, to my understanding. By mystery, by big total mystery, again was this permit was never been to be found. I have letters, I have e -mails from Joe Schmitt saying that we never apply for any permit. We came in front of you saying there was no permit was being requested for this particular project. I have Mr. Letourneau came in front of you telling you that never Page 47 16 JulnkB& was a permit -- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I didn't understand that. MR. CHAMI: Mr. Letourneau came in front of you and he said again no permit was being requested. We have the proof now that was being requested on May 15th, 2009. Nevertheless, after Mr. Joe Schmitt left the county we had the meeting with his -- the other people in the county who assured us that we would be having a fair shake on this particular deal. But basically when you submit for an SDPI, which Mr. Letourneau was very well aware of. I'm very surprised that under oath he's saying he's not aware of it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let me if I could, I want to explain procedurally where we are right now. Those type of issues would be excellent testimony to enter as a reason to get a motion for an extension of time on the original order. At this point the order time frame has now elapsed and fines have started to accrue. This board is being asked to basically enforce those fines by imposing them, which would then file all the steps therefore afterwards. We can't go back and rehear the case, we can't entertain a motion to extend time at this point. MR. CHAMI: No, I don't want to do it. All I'm saying is like Mr. Letourneau in front of you said that he's not aware of anything happening on it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, no -- MR. LETOURNEAU: I object. That was on a previous -- that was on a total other case. I had nothing -- okay. MR. CHAMI: The case to my understanding, Mr. Ron Martindale told me when we met together around six months ago that we cannot anymore take the permit submitted on May 15th, 2009, 164 B5 June 24, 2010 because it was six months elapse. After six months we cannot. So basically we have to resubmit. And the county said instead of resubmitting your drawing, the permit, you have to submit an SDPI. And the SDPI will be looked into it. Mr. Letourneau helped my wife, because I had to go to take care of -- for personal reason I had to be over five weeks outside the country back and forth. Basically Mr. Letourneau helped my wife basically to submit for the SDPI. The SDPI was being submit on May 20th. Was being approved on every single level besides fire. I received a letter from Mr. Michael Levy -- my apologies, Michael Ossorio on June 15th that basically everything was being approved beside the fire. I met with Mr. Bob Sevaggio from fire, who basically now they are requesting fire flow test, they are requesting site plan with all the fire hydrants on the property, they're requesting more detail, which frankly it's for an outside pass - through and for a door. Which is on the -- which I'm not arguing with this. You can't argue with fire no matter what you do. So basically on June 15 I hire Banks Engineering to start on the -- knowing the permit submitted on May 15th was being approved by fire, was being approved without any request for fire hydrant test, for without anything like this. We hire Banks Engineering on June 15th to redo the drawings to submit the site plan with all the fire hydrants, with all the different -- so we can go to North Naples Fire District and request for a flow test on the fire hydrants, as well as submit all different sections and showing the different elevation for the pass - through. So right now the only thing missing to be able to get all the permits is the fire. And hopefully, from what Banks Engineering told Page 49 6 B5 June 4, 201 me, the drawings should be finalized on Monday and they can be submitting them hopefully on Tuesday and takes a week or two and they should be by fire and everything should be fine and ready to move. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Excellent. Out of respect, I allowed that testimony because you asked for two minutes. It really isn't relevant, because it doesn't prove that you're somehow not in compliance (sic). So what I have to do now through our procedure is just go to the next step, which is discussion amongst the board and questions. Anything? MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, can we read the imposition of fines into the record? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Absolutely. Jeff, would you like to do it? MR. LETOURNEAU: I would. I'd like to -- for the record Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is for -- a request for imposition of fines and liens for CEB Case No. CESD20090012961, Board of County Commissioners versus J. Peaceful, LC. Original violation is of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Location of the violation: 7770 Preserve Lane, Naples Florida. Folio No. 68391446166. Description of the violation: Alterations to structure without obtaining required permit, subsequent inspections or issuance of certificate of occupancy or completion. The past order: On October 22nd, 2009 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4506, Page 24 -- excuse me, Page 2540 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of June Page 50 1611 B5 ' June 24, 2010 24th9 2010. The fines and costs to date are described as: Order item number two, fines at the rate of $100 per day for the period between February 23rd, 2010 and June 24th, 2010, totaling 122 days, for the total amount of $12,200. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of $86.14 have been paid. The total amount due to date is $12,200. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. MR. KAUFMAN: In the past when we hear cases and there's activity going on relative to getting permits or work being done to get a property into compliance, we bend over backwards to admit that type of reason into our deliberation. I'm confused as to whether the county knows what's going on. I hear one story here that I'm right around the corner from this being done, and then I hear on the other side that we don't know that anything has happened since the last time it was heard. So -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I was just -- that was from the last case as far as the land use. I was referring to the land use case. I never made a statement as far as the permitting case. He put words in my mouth, basically. We were hearing whether or not he was going to have the land use case heard today, and I said as far as I know there was no progress on that. The permitting case, I do know there was progress on, but he never -- you know, that wasn't brought up. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, why don't we bring that up now? What's the progress that's been made? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I know that I did meet with his wife and she did come down, and I know she went over and brought paperwork, submitted paperwork to the permitting department. I'm not really sure how far along they are, though. That's where we're at right now. But he has been making an attempt just recently to try to Page 51 161.1 85 June 24, 2010 get this thing rectified. MR. CHAMI: Just recently? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have a recommendation then? I mean, are you willing to pull it, if that's the case? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I'd like to say that I spend -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: There was no request for an extension of time. MS. WALDRON: We did pull this at the last hearing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So we have delayed it once before. Okay. MS. WALDRON: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: I just want to make a comment. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I do -- sorry. MR. ORTEGA: When was the permit applied for? MR. LETOURNEAU: He needs to -- there was a ramp built, I believe, and an original door structure was turned into a -- or original drive -thru window was turned into a door, into a -- it's called Splash and Sizzle; it's a pool business. MR. ORTEGA: But you have an addition/alteration commercial permit. But you also need the SDPI. MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe so. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. When was the permit applied for? Was the permit applied for? Permit, not the SDPI. MR. LETOURNEAU: There's no permit on -- I checked this morning in our records and there's no permit as of today applied for in our records. Just the original old permit that was applied for, you know, back over a year ago. MR. CHAMI: You said that was never been applied, just to go on the record. He said a year ago that we never applied for a permit. Now he's saying that we applied for a permit a year ago. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I understand. Because we have -- are familiar with this, we understand that you can go to the county and Page 52 1611 85 June 24, 2010 present them with paperwork, but until you have all the check boxes marked off, they won't accept it and say, okay, this is our application, we'll now send it to review. And I believe that's the difference here. County's position then is to reiterate -- MS. WALDRON: We've actually withdrawn this twice, not only once. CHAIRMAN KELLY: This particular case? MS. WALDRON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So county's position is to stay on the agenda, and you're not wishing to pull it? MR. CHAMI: And my understand, it was being pulled once. MR. LETOURNEAU: The respondent has been in front of us before in other cases. And I think by now he should know the procedures and so forth. So I would not be in favor of extending it. I would be in favor imposing the fines. And this has been going on for over a year. And if a permit was denied because of fire or because of one reason or another, it wasn't fire but whatever it was denied for, I would think that he would be diligent enough to go ahead and find out why and get that corrected. And that doesn't seem like it's been the case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm make a motion to deny -- MR. CHAMI: Just allow me to speak. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- or to impose the fines. MR. CHAMI: Allow me to speak one second, please. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hang on a second. We have a motion. I just need to see if there's a second on that motion. MR. ORTEGA: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And if it's a discussion amongst the Page 53 Ibi 1 65 June 24, 2010 board, I would like to ask if we can admit outside testimony. But right now since it's a motion, it's closed between us. Okay, all those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: No. Okay, so what we did is we imposed the fines here. Now, this is not the end of the world. It does mean that there will be something recorded against the property. But if you do come into compliance, you have a certain window of time to come back to us and ask us to either reduce or possibly abate the entire fine altogether and nothing will be charged against you at that time, if that was what we decide, okay? So what we'll do is we'll switch gears and go to the second case now. And Jeff, if you would, could you read the order in please? MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again for the record -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm sorry, I need to swear you both in, since it's a different case. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again for the record, Supervisor Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is a request for imposition of fines and liens for CEB Case No. CELU20090010758, Board of County Commissioners versus J. Peaceful, LC. Page 54 1-6•I.1- B 5 June 24, 2010 Violation is of Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41, as amended, Section 2.02.03, prohibited use. Location of the violation is 7730 Preserve Lane, Naples, Florida. Folio 68391446166. Description of the violation is a truck rental business prohibited in C -3 zoned location. Permitted only in C -4 zoned or higher. The past order: On October 22nd, 2009 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4506, Page 2536 for more information. An extension of time was granted on January 28th, 2010. See OR 4537, Page 1738 for more information. Respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of June 24th, 2010. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number two, fines at the rate of $100 per day for the period between May 25th, 2010 and June 24, 2010, for 31 days, for the total amount of $3,100. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of $86.14 have been paid. Total amount to date: $3,100. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: Under item number two, you said that the dates were from -- for 31 days. We have -- if I'm looking at the correct one, I have 27 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For a total of 2,700. So do you have an updated page, perhaps? MS. DAVIDSON: There is an updated page. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Which one has the respondent received? MS. DAVIDSON: He hasn't received the updated page. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So what Mr. Letourneau read is the more updated one, which would be the more accurate one? Page 55 1611 B5 June 24, 2010 MS. DAVIDSON: Correct. It starts at May 25th. MR. LEFEBVRE: Instead of May 29th. MS. DAVIDSON: Instead of May 29th, correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, yeah, which would be after the 120 -day extension. May 24th was when it ended so May 25th is when the fines would start. MS. DAVIDSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's the additional three days. It's $3,100. Got it. Okay, Mr. Chami, if you'd like to speak to this one? MR. CHAMI: I will. You asked me before, or gentlemen -- I'm sorry, you asked me before who was the lawyer from the county attorney who was taking care of the case. It is Mr. Jeffrey Klatzkow. Basically it was executive summary produced by Mr. -- by County Attorney, which was presented to the board on November 10th. My apology again with regard to -- the issue was regard to pulling the truck out from the property. I never understood it that way for a very simple reason. Your order basically saying remove them or apply for zoning. I went -- I petitioned the county, the Board of Commissioners. It was basically in September, to my best recollection. I'm really sorry, I never thought that I would be in front of you today with this particular issue. I met with Mrs. Colleen Davidson on June 14th when I heard this case was coming in front of you. I sent an e -mail to the code enforcement explaining the whole situation. I was expecting at least Mr. Letourneau to call at least the County Attorney. I put them all in my e -mail to the county explaining the different issues. I guess some people, they have their mind already set. So anyway basically September I petitioned the county -- the Board of Commissioners. It was a wording in this PUD as I Page 56 1611 85 ° June 24, 2010 mentioned today, and it was jurisprudence on it, somebody took it to the court and the court found that basically if we have -- and let me read basically the wording on it. Truck rentals: The County Attorney's conclusion. Truck rentals such as U -Haul truck have historically existed in various zoning district venturing from C -3 to C -5. Development services director in this -- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I don't understand you. MR. CHAMI: My apology for that. All that I'm saying here on this particular issue, it was for Olde Cypress PUD, basically if we have a permitted use, which is not being listed or allowed and used somewhere else in the C -3 or identical use, it will be permitted within this particular one. Now, unfortunately Mr. Joe Schmitt found it not in line. So basically the County Attorney position was to bring it to the Board of Commissioners to see if they can reverse it as an appeal, a board of appeal, or they will concur with his position. Unfortunately during the discussion we end up having -- most of the commissioners were agreeing on this, but basically it was two items totally outside the U -Haul issue which blocked the whole adoption of it. One was the landscaping along Immokal.ee Road, which was being removed to replant something else which was not done for a while. Three, around six months. As well as certain past issue with regard to the county which was being brought by one of the commissioners. And since it was start creating lots of wrong situation, wrong issues being discussed at the time on this particular meeting, Mr. Tom Henning requested to put it out immediately since it was really creating a totally nonsense with the particular meeting and requesting more detail and more research to be made to the allegation at that particular meeting. Frankly I have no -- they never pulled out, they never denied it. Page 57 1611 B5, June 24, 2010 But all they did, and to my understanding the County Attorney decided not to put it in the next one until they will be ready for it. Now, I have absolutely all -- I was very surprised to see it coming in front of you for a lenient (phonetic) position. So I sent an e -mail, talked to Mrs. Colleen Davidson. I sent an e-mail explaining exactly what I was mentioning in this particular e -mail. It was supposed to be part of your package. And basically I was expecting Mr. Letourneau at least to make some phone calls to the County Attorney's Office who are very well aware of the situation to really make sure that we are coming in front of you with a really clear and clean situation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right. Mr. Letourneau, is it still the county's position that we maintain this on the agenda and move towards a vote? MR. LETOURNEAU: Bottom line is that I don't know why Mr. Chami is confused about the order. The first thing it says is remove the equipment from the property to an area intended for such use. If he would have just done that, he would have avoided the fines and we wouldn't be here right now. He could have done that part of the order and then dealt with the illegal part of the zoning at that point. It is the county's position that we do want to go ahead with this. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: I remember this case very specifically, and I do remember one of the board members, and I don't remember who made the motion, but I do remember very specifically saying that the trucks needed to be removed and off -site somewhere, and you still could have the operation running but the trucks be somewhere off -site. And I specifically remember that, because this is somewhat of a unique case. So I really think that being that you've been in front of us and everything, it could have been resolved very easily by moving the trucks off -site. 1611 B5 June 24, 2010 MR. CHAMI: How could I do it? How can I physically? I mean, you're asking me to shut the business. How do you want me to move trucks and -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, the other question -- the other question I have for you is if -- is this a -- could this be a conditional use within a C -3 zoning? If in fact other C -3 zonings allow this particular use, can it be a conditional -- possible conditional use? I mean, if C -3 doesn't allow it, it's very hard to get the use if it's not accepted. If it's not an accepted use, we could be sitting here, and if we give you an extension of time we could be sitting here three, four, five, six months down the road. I think you've had plenty of time to try to figure this out. It's been almost a year and there's still been no resolution to this. MR. CHAMI: For me it is a done deal, frankly. It's yes or no. The board basically was in front of them to allow me two years, basically. This what basically what was -- the consensus at that time when I talked to each member of the board at that time -- I'm talking the Board of Commissioners -- to see if they allow me two years or three years until the time for them to be able to rezone or to apply for it. But unfortunate Mr. Henning remembered very specifically at that time that that particular PUD, they don't require zoning. Because if it was being used before and we have -- the County Attorney went and did many research about many other areas where U -Haul was within a C -3. And so it was not an issue about anything, it was really going on a motion to approve it. And even the County Attorney made it very clear that he has absolutely no opposition on being approved until we got one person from the staff came in and start shooting -- and they had one commissioner saying that I was dishonest -- MR. LEFEBVRE: The issue I have -- MR. CHAMI: -- and they had to stop it completely. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- there's nothing -- if there was minutes from the Board of County Commissioners saying in fact that this is the case, Page 59 1611 B 5 � June 24, 2010 then that would be testimony, that would be hard evidence. Just like there's pictures that were brought here by the investigator on ojne of the previous cases. But unfortunately that's not the case. We have to listen to your testimony and to ex -- asking -- I guess you're potentially asking for an extension of time, but we don't have that hard and fast information from the County Commissioners that that in fact was the case. MR. CHAMI: If you could -- I really apologize for not being prepared to this meeting. I was sure it was done deal. I was sure basically that it will be pulled from the meeting. I had absolutely no doubt in my mind the county would be pulling it. And for 60 days, I will be promising you, in 60 days either I will bring all the papers and will be in front of the Board of Commissioners, and then either I shut my mouth and that's it, it's no more deal on this situation and we can know it at that particular time. MR. LEFEBVRE: But weren't you in front of us another time a couple months ago on this particular case and you said I'll have resolution to this within a certain amount of time. Was this the case? MR. CHAMI: No, I'm sorry, what happened at that particular time, I explain to you that basically the Board of Commissioners decided to hear this particular case and it was jurisprudence on. it and it will be shortly on the board. End up being a month later, or six weeks later in the Board of Commissioners. But it was being pulled. And frankly I never knew when it will be back on the Board of Commissioners, because they're doing their own research about certain allegation being made 'about drawing and submitting 2000 and 2001 and to see if it really in fact what one of the staff was saying was true or not. So -- but I can assure you, I talked to Commissioner Herming and he talked to the county attorney, to my understanding, and that will be very shortly on the board. If you can just allow me 60 days, the 60 days would allow me then to be able to show you either they approve Page 60 16 1- 1 B15 June 24, 2010 it or they deny it, and then we can move on. MR. LEFEBVRE: But the responsibility is on you. If in November you in fact said that it was sent back to have more research done, you should have been following up with the County Attorney's Office to say where do we stand, where do we stand. And we're back -- we're here eight months later, there's no further resolution. You don't know when you're going to be in front of the board again. It just doesn't -- I'm not impelled to give you more time, because it seems like it's been dragged out long enough at this point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that a motion? MR. CHAMI: Well, if you feel the -- and I don't want to start going through my misery with what's happening right now, that's my problems. But basically I'm really sorry to say, but we have so many things right now, my priority is to find my payroll to my employees. My priority is to find my payment for the mortgage not to foreclose on my property. All my priority right now, really, when you put everything within -- everything within -- really is not -- not ignoring it, but matter of I thought that somebody else at the county was taking care of this issue and they would be bringing it back in front of the Board of Commissioners. So I understand, I understand you fully. I was in development before, and I understand very well, it still lays on me to be able to do it. All I'm asking is your understanding on this particular situation. I'm really surprised that the county is not pulling this issue, I'm really surprised. MR. LEFEBVRE: If you remember -- not to cut you off, but if you remember from when you were here for the sign, it took a while, you started getting fined and you came back and you got everything done and we took care of the fine. That option still is on the table. But what we're trying to do is compel you to move forward and to -- we want to see the case be abated. That's basically what our job Page 61 1611 85 June 24, 2010 is, is to see that this case is abated. And I don't -- from what I see, we're not moving towards that direction. I don't see any compelling reason to move forward as we go. I'm in the -- on the side of imposing the fines. And I guess Mr. Kelly asked me to make a motion, and I make a motion to impose the fines on this case also. And again, you will have the opportunity once it does come into compliance, whatever way that may be, come into compliance, come back to us and explain why you'd want the fines reduced. And I can just say that if you do get this resolved, you come back to us, please, have some hard evidence showing what you've done in front of the board with minutes and so forth that you can show as testimony that you've been diligent in trying to get this resolved. MR. CHAMI: But you don't find -- I understand. I respect your position. And -- but you don't find that there's -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Because of procedures. MR. CHAMI: -- as Mr. Letourneau know is not making his own research also? CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. I have to see if there's a second before -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a second. And then now we have discussion amongst ourselves. Does anybody -- MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure, go ahead. MR. ORTEGA: Has a zoning verification letter been issued at all? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you know? MR. LETOURNEAU: That I do not know. MR. ORTEGA: Let me rephrase that. Has a zoning verification letter been applied for and /or issued? Page 62 1611 B5 June 24, 2010 MR. LETOURNEAU: I do not know what exactly has been applied for or issued. Mrs. Chami brought in a certain amount of paperwork maybe a month ago, and we guided her up to the front there. And I checked this morning, I didn't see anything. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't. I was just checking for permits at this point this morning, I wasn't checking for any kind of zoning. MR. ORTEGA: Let me address the question to Mr. Chami. Has a zoning verification letter been applied for? MR. CHAMI: With regard to the use of the property? With regard to -- MR. ORTEGA: Whenever you want to verify intent of a use or otherwise with any zoning, there is something called a zoning verification letter which you can apply for, and they'll give you their findings whether you can or not. MR. CHAMI: To my understanding similar things happened. Because see, this particular use we're using, the U -Haul -- MR. ORTEGA: Do you have a copy of that? MR. CHAMI: No. But it was being -- yes. Mean we're not allowed, basically what -- the county -- Mr. Joe Schmitt's department to find out that we are not allowed to have a U -Haul within a C -3 use, or zoning. Definitely it was being the case. And we're not contesting it in that particular situation. So -- but this particular use was for six years. It's not -- or seven years. We're not talking about something I did yes -- if it was illegal and they knew -- usually, and I don't do anything illegal. If I do it, because frankly it's my ignorance. And for over six years this particular -- we have this particular business in place. It's not we did it seven months ago and they found out right away. Took the code enforcement two days to find out if we're allowed to have a U -Haul or not on this particular property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Page 63 June 24, 201 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, again on this case we went ahead and imposed the fines. But like Gerald said, you have the opportunity to come back whenever it is in compliance and ask us for abatement. MS. WALDRON: Just for clarification on that aspect, once this is imposed by the Code Enforcement Board, he will need to go to the BCC, not back to you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For -- MS. WALDRON: For -- asking for a reduction of fines. Those items do go to the Board of Commissioners. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's right. I apologize, it is to the BCC. Because they're the ones that have it now. MR. CHAMI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Okay, are there any reports or comments? MS. WALDRON: Ms. Flagg would like to -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: There is. MS. WALDRON: -- give a report. MR. MARINO: With a smile on her face. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, really. MS. FLAGG: Good morning. Diane Flagg, for the record. Sorry, I was at the budget hearings this morning with the board. Just wanted to give you an update on the abatements. The amount of money paid by the banks to abate code violations in Collier Page 64 Ue k4120 95 .. County is now $1,000,601. The number of code violations that the banks have abated is 1,195. And just last week the banks spent $18,797 to abate code violations. Last week ending June 13th, we opened an additional 171 new code cases, which is our indicator that the foreclosures are not slowing down, the foreclosures continue to role in. There were 745 property inspections completed by the code investigators last week. 103 cases were closed with voluntary compliance. And another indicator that property is moving that we look at is there were just last week 355 lien searches requested by title companies or potential property purchasers. MR. MARINO: Diane, excuse me, did you say there was 743 cases last week, or inspections last week? MS. FLAGG: 745 in one week, yes. These are -- the stats that I just gave you are -- the 171 new cases came in in one week. 745 property inspections done in one week. 103 cases closed in one week. MR. MERAN: How big is your staff? MS. FLAGG: Well it's been reduced by one. We have 49 total in the department. We go into -- we have 50 currently but we'll have 49 starting in FY 11. And the investigators carry an average of 52 cases as of this point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And what you're saying is there's quite at bit of activity out there for maybe buying and selling going on. MS. FLAGG: Uh -huh, Um -hum, there are. And that's the importance of making sure that property purchasers do a lien search and a code property inspection. All of that information is on the code enforcement website. It's in a brochure format, so you just have to click and then you can print it at your own computer. On June 30th, the foreclosure task course is having a forum for Page 65 1bii�1 B5 June 24, 2010 primarily realtors and attorneys to talk about the newest laws in regard to foreclosure. Things are not slowing down in regard to foreclosures. MR. UESPERANCE: The total number we have is approximately? MS. FLAGG: We're approaching 20,000. MR. LEFEBVRE: Where and what time is that forum? MS. FLAGG: I'll send -- I'll have Jen send out the forum workshop information for you. And it will cover -- the workshop will cover all the new federal programs coming out in regard to foreclosures. So it should be a very valuable workshop. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. It's sad to see homeowners purchase a home that has code violations on it. It's great that your department's offering that search for them. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Our next meeting date is going to be July 22nd. Are we back at our normal location back into the courthouse? With that, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: month. Thank you very much. See you next Page 66 June B5 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:55 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD KENNETH KELLY, Chairman These minute approved by the board on JU104as p UWresented minute as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 67 16111 195 July 22, 2010 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE iD CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD H�a 8- Naples, Florida Henning SEP - 1 2016 July 22, 2010 Coyle 'board of County COnlmlSSlQnef5 ColettB LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Kelly Larry Dean Ron Doino (Excused) Robert Kaufman James Lavinski Gerald Lefebvre Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino (Absent) Herminio Ortega ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Min, Correa: Jen Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist Date: Item #: Page 1 C�Nes to: 16 JJu 221350 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to order. Notice: Respondents may be limited to 20 minutes per 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 Roberts Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have roll call? 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. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Herminio Ortega? MR. ORTEGA: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ron Doino has an excused absence today, and Mr. Tony Marino is absent. Page 2 161 1 U, ZO CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a full board. All of our normal board members are here so they'll all have voting rights. Now, moving on to the agenda. Can you tell us what changes are on the agenda, please? MS. WALDRON: Under number four, public hearings /motions, letter A, motions, motion for extension of time, we have one addition, which will be number four, Emma Houston, Case CESD- 2009 - 0017445. Under letter B. stipulations, we have four stipulations. The first will be Karla P. Abdala, Case CESD- 2009 - 0002717. Number two, Ivy Jean Nebus, Judy Ann Blake and Betty Jo Robertson, Case CEAU- 2009 - 0015258. Number three, Leonel Garza, et al, Case CEPM- 2009 - 0017577. And the fourth one will be Jose G. Romero and Avelina Romero, Case CESD -2010- 0002477. Under letter C, hearings, we'll be withdrawing Case No. 2 on the agenda, CESD- 2009 - 0000870, Richard Mercer, Jeffrey and Amy Mercer. And moving on to number five, old business, letter A, motion for imposition of fines /liens, we -- scratch that. That's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any changes from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: In that case, I'll entertain a motion to accept the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion, second. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 3 July 22, 2010 MR. KAUFMAN. Aye. 1 61 1 B5 MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the ayes have it unanimously. Moving on to minutes. Any changes from the minutes from last month? MS. WALDRON: No changes from us. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And any changes from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: If not, I'll entertain a motion to accept. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? MR. DEAN: I oppose. CHAIRMAN KELLY: One abstention. MR. DEAN: It's not oppose, abstain. CHAIRMAN KELLY: One abstention for an absence -- I got you -- from Mr. Dean. Very good. Mr. Dean, can I borrow your pen? Moving on to public hearings /motions for extension of time, number one, Felix and Guadalupe Alvarado. (Speakers and Interpreter Felix Alvarado were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Good morning. Page 4 161 Since you're asking for the extension of time, if you'd like to take a moment and explain to us what events have happened and where you are now and why you need the extension, that would be great. MR. ALVARADO: We've already got everything. All we need is just get the permit and we just need time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could you pull the microphone down a little closer to you so the court reporter can hear too? Go ahead. MR. ALVARADO: Yeah, we just need more time. Money -wise, you know, the work's so slow and everything. It's just we need more time, you know, to get the money to get the permits. And we got everything, papers, everything ready, so all we need is just the permits. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And it says in your letter that you're asking for 60 days; is that correct? MR. ALVARADO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And will 60 days be enough time to complete it? MR. ALVARADO: Well, four months -- what was it we asked? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Sixty days. MR. ALVARADO: Sixty days? Yeah, that will be plenty of time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You sure? MR. ALVARADO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any objection from the county? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No objection. They have applied for the permit. Except because it was an after - the -fact permit, it was like $1,000, he didn't have the money. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Because of the after - the -fact permit fees? MS. RODRIGUEZ: (Nods head affirmatively.) 1 161 1 B 51y Z�ZOIa CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are there any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. MR. ALVARADO: Excuse me, instead of 60 days, can we get 90 days? MR. DEAN: What? I didn't hear him. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The respondent is requesting 90 days instead of 60 days, which was in the original letter. MR. DEAN: I guess I don't understand. You said 60 days was fine, plenty of time, now you want 90? MR. ALVARADO: Yes, he just told me. If we could get 90 days instead of 60 days. MR. DEAN: I have no problem. MR. KAUFMAN: Can I ask the county what this entails. MS. RODRIGUEZ: It's a metal carport. MR. KAUFMAN: And what is it -- happening? It needs to be permitted to stay or it needs -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: It needs to be permitted to stay. And he's already got all the permits, it's just he needs the money to pay for it to C.O. it. Because it's a permit by affidavit. So once he gets the permit, like the following day it will be C.O.'d. But he just doesn't have the money right now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the county doesn't have any type of waiving because it's a code case? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to extend the respondent's time to pull the permit and get a Certificate of Completion for 90 days. MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Dean. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? 1611 B5 4 July 22, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Thank you, sir. MR. ALVARADO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll see you soon. MR. KAUFMAN: Hopefully not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're right. Moving on to Ochs, Ridhard and Norton, extension of time. Real quick clarification, the last 90 -day motion was from today, correct? MR. LEFEBVRE: From today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jean, you got that? MS. RAWSON: I got it, thanks. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry, Susan. MR. LEFEBVRE: I added that at the tail end of it. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, Susan. MS. O'FARRELL: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So we have a letter requesting an extension. Is there -- an extension of 90 days to fully execute, therefore, they're requesting a 120 -day extension. Are there any objections from the county? MS.O'FARRELL: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? Page 7 1611 55y 21,(010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that we approve the extension for 120 days from today's date. MR. UESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second by Mr. L'Esperance. Any discussion at all? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks, Susan. Next case, Ayala and -- or Mateo Ayala. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MR. AYALA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Since you have requested the extension of time, would you like to explain just briefly for the board why you need the extension? MR. AYALA: Well, at the time I already got the permit, the demolition permit. I started knocking it down yesterday. I needed the time because I was going to try to keep one of the structures there, but I couldn't pull the permit, no way. So I just need a few more -- probably two to three weeks and I'll have it ready to go. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So originally you had tried to 10 __ . 161185 I July 22, 2010 explore the option of keeping it -- MR. AYALA: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- realized that it might not be the best -- MR. AYALA: Right. So I'm going to go ahead and tear it all down. I mean, it's already started, so -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. MR. KAUFMAN: So you don't need the 90 days? MR. AYALA: I'd say within three weeks at the most. I mean, I'm tearing it down now, but I just got to make sure I clean everything up. MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we grant 60 days. MR. AYALA: That would be plenty. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. Is there a permit pulled on this? MR. AYALA: Yes. Yeah, I got a demolition permit. It's already posted out there and I started knocking it down yesterday. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And is there any objection from the county? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No objection. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any other further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seeing none, all those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. Page 9 16 0* 1' B 5 `l July 22, 2010 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Sixty days. Thank you, sir. The last motion for extension of time is Emma Houston. And the respondent's not here. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. Just to speak to this issue, not arguing for or against the extension, this is not Ms. Houston's first rodeo with this board, but this is the first time Ms. Houston has showed initiative that she may comply. She did vacate the premises. There's no longer anyone living there, which is the board's main concern. They are closed up. She does state she's going to get permits within 90 days. I'm not sure that that's reasonable, but that's what she wants and that's what she requests. But to me this is unusual in that she has demonstrated to the board that she does want to comply. She complied with one part of your orders, and she may do this. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion with the board or questions? MR. ORTEGA: I do have a question. It says here single -wide mobile home converted to a single dwelling? MR. SNOW: What she did is she converted the mobile home into two individual dwellings. If you remember, they were the blue mobile homes that had the extended roof attached to it that was an open roof. And the main concern is we did not know or you did not know whether it was safe or not. So one of the main requests you had was to vacate the premises, which she did. Page 10 16i1$5 I< July 22, 2010 So I believe she wants to either have those removed -- I've talked to Ms. Houston, explained the desire for the board to have her here so you could ask her questions yourself. And I know that's your policy, unofficial policy, to go ahead and demonstrate their willingness to comply to the board. But I think she wants to either permit them, turn them back into the single- family double wide, the one trailer without the double dwelling in it, or have them removed and have new trailers put in there. MR. ORTEGA: And the extension of time again was? MR. SNOW: Ninety days, sir. MR. ORTEGA: Ninety days. MR. UESPERANCE: You feel that may not be adequate time? MR. SNOW: I don't know how far she's along. I know there's nothing that's been applied for. She does have -- state that she does have a contractor. But I would like to see it not go farther than 90 days for the fact that she hasn't demonstrated to the board other than this one time that she's willing to comply. She can always come back to the board and request more time if she needs more time. But I wouldn't want to extend it past that 90 -day period for the fact that she may wait till the 119th day of 120 days and then come in and say I need more time. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you had any problems getting ahold of her or conversations going back and forth? MR. SNOW: Sir, it's strange, sometimes Ms. Houston is readily available and other times she's not. She's called me on a couple of occasions and we've discussed this, and then I try to reach her and I can't reach her for two weeks, so -- but this letter, and she says that she's going to do it, so -- MR. KAUFMAN: I'll make a motion then we grant her the 90 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? Page 1 I 16 b B5 July 22, Zo 10 MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I just want the board to be aware that part of the fines started on May 14th, if I'm not mistaken, and then the other part started in June. So we're actually giving her more time than 90 days, because she was supposed to get this corrected months ago on one of them. So I just want the board to be aware of that. And then please reiterate that if she comes in front of us again, we might not be as willing to given another extension. MR. SNOW: County's in agreement on that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion? MR. ORTEGA: I don't agree with this. I think we need to bring her before the board within 30 days to find out what the intent is. I think 30 days is more than enough to figure out what you want to do. At this point it's not clear; am I correct? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If we give her 30 days, it would most likely hit the September meeting, not necessarily the August. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, we could say by next meeting. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: We could do that. MR. KAUFMAN: I have no problem withdrawing my motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion withdrawn. Is there another motion then? MR. ORTEGA: I'd like to make a motion to give the respondent 30 days to come before the board -- MR. SNOW: Hold on. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, let's hold it, we have Ms. Houston here. MR. SNOW: Ms. Houston is here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ms. Houston, we're discussing your case now. Would you like to step up? And the court reporter will have to Page 12 16I 1 B 5 "1 July 22, Zoe o swear you in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. HOUSTON: I'm sorry I'm late. I missed my road. I don't live in the area, so -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you for driving all the way in from Immokalee, we appreciate it. And just to catch you up, what we've been discussing is we're actually looking at your letter right now, and we see that you have vacated the home and that you've hired a contractor, and at this time you're asking for an additional 90 days from today to give you enough time to fix the issues. MS. HOUSTON: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The discussion from the county has been very positive. They're willing to ask the board to grant the time of 90 days. The discussion amongst the board has been somewhere right around 30 days to allow you the chance to come and appear again in front of us to explain why you need more time. But since you're here today, maybe you can help us better understand what your intentions are. MS. HOUSTON: Okay. And why I need more time is -- I know this is personal, but I had months of things in my family. The person that really helped me was in a court procedure two and a half years. So when that help was gone I had no help, I had to make decisions on my own. And the lady that I tried to get out -- I was very friendly with, and she said -- you know, but when I got to doing the motion of getting her out, she would not go. And she was in that house about 14, 15 years, so she felt like -- and she's not an English speaking person, she felt that that was her home. Her daughter moved her stuff out but she still would not go. So that put me in a process of going through some strenuous things and other financial situations. Page 13 16 � 16 5 *-4 July 22, 2010 But I, you know, got her out and got everybody else out of the house. And even the doors were removed. And I did not know that I had to get a licensed contractor to give me permission to tear the parts down. And I -- and procedure. I talked with his wife yesterday, I called him several times. So, you know, we hurried up and that's where I'm at now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Did you say you do have a contractor now? MS. HOUSTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have any questions from the board? MR. ORTEGA: I do have a question. Actually, several questions. One, your intent is to place the mobile home back in its original condition; is that your intent? MS. HOUSTON: My intent is to go two ways if I could. Either way. But my first intent is to put it back in condition, yes. MR. ORTEGA: And you are aware that in order to proceed or to conduct any work, you do need a permit, correct? MS. HOUSTON: Yes. But like I said, I found out you need a permit for everything. And that's why, you know, you have to, yes. And I did not know that you need permits for all these things that you do. But it seems like everything, you know. MR. ORTEGA: The purpose for the questions are to establish how much time you really need. I think the request is for 90 days, and, based on what you decide to do, will have an impact on the time. That's why I'm asking these questions. MS. HOUSTON: Well, if I cannot replace that trailer, you know, where it's at, I cannot tear the front off and -- without a lot of hassle, then I will need to get a permit from the department to put something else there. But my first intent, because the money is not there, is to tear the Page 14 UPI B5 July 22, 2010 front off and see can I go with that, you know, finish tearing it down. MR. ORTEGA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is anyone inclined to make a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll make a motion that we grant a 90 -day extension. If you have a problem meeting the 90 days, you need to come back to the board prior to the expiration of the 90 days. MR. UESPERANCE: The property is vacant, correct? MS. HOUSTON: Yes, it's vacant. MR. UESPERANCE: I'd like to second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second. Do we have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The ayes have it unanimously. You have 90 days from today. And I'd like to reiterate, there was discussion before you got here from the board members about not being as lenient. So if you could tell us prior to any expiration your progress if you need more time, we would appreciate it. MS. HOUSTON: So you want me to state it again? CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, you're good. You've got the 90 days. But if you run into further problems and you need more than the Page 15 1611 q July aa,`��o 90 days, the board is asking that you let us know about the extension, the request for more time before it expires. MS. HOUSTON: Oh. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Thank you for making the trip over. MR. SNOW: The County thanks the Board. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's all for the motions of time. Now moving on to B, stipulations. Abdala. (Speakers and Interpreter Ed Severo were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MS. ABDALA: Karla Abdala. INTERPRETER SEVERO: Ed Severo. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you'd like, you can bring the microphone closer to your mouth so that we can all hear. Investigator Paul, would you like to tell us about the stipulation. MR. PAUL: Yes, I would. For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement. I've spoken with Mrs. Abdala, and she's agreed to pay the operational cost in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing, and abate all violations by, respondent's required to the obtain any and all permits as required by Collier County for any and all improvements and alterations to this residence, or obtain permits for removal of all unpermitted improvements to this property and obtain all required inspections and Certificate of Completion within 60 days of this hearing or be fined $200 a day for each day the violation remains. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all Page 16 16 1 �11 b '.) July 22, 2010 costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. And she has agreed to this. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you would translate and ask if she understands that she has 60 days to either get the existing garage permitted as -is or to turn it back to its original state, or a fine of $200 per day will accrue. INTERPRETER SEVERO: She understands. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Please. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you have any idea which direction you're going to go? Are you going to demo it or restore -- INTERPRETER SEVERO: No, we already -- the building department already approved the construction part of it. We got -- we're dealing with the health department for the -- there was issues with the septic. So we expect to correct that within the next few weeks. MR. KAUFMAN: And you think that 60 days would be sufficient time to get everything done? INTERPRETER SEVERO: I believe so, I believe so. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion? MR. ORTEGA: I do have a question. If the intent is to keep the conversion, how far is it? Is it complete? INTERPRETER SEVERO: Yeah, it's complete. It was an issue of getting a permit by affidavit, and I check with the county yesterday and like I said, the construction part of the violation has been completed. However, the health department got in at the last minute requesting information that we haven't finish yet, you know. We had the inspection of the septic where we got certification, we're just dealing with the paperwork, so -- MR. ORTEGA: No further questions. Page 17 16 I' 1 B 5 July 22, 2010 MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the ayes have it unanimously. INTERPRETER SEVERO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks very much. Good luck. Next stipulation is going to be Nebus, Blake and Robertson. MS. CAPASSO: Supervisor Susanna Capasso, for the record. Capasso, C- A- P- A- S -S -O. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. CAPASSO: Mrs. Robertson is representing her family. And this has been an ongoing issue since it started in the 2002 when they first applied for a permit. The fence was never completed. It was re -app'd in 2008, and they have yet to complete it. They recently re -app'd the permit, and Mrs. Robertson, speaking on behalf of herself or her sisters, has assured me that 60 days would be enough and that they would complete the fence. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Would you like her to read the stipulation agreement into record? Page 18 t 16 1J � 2zB 010 MS. RAWSON: Yes. And I notice that on my copy you didn't put the amounts of costs in there. MS. CAPASSO: At the time when I met with Ms. Robertson, I did not have the amount. She was going out of town, so we just wanted her to sign it. But I did explain to her that there would be operational costs, usually between 80 and $85, and that she would be required to pay within 30 days of the hearing. And she agreed to it, she had no problems with it. MS. RAWSON: So if we added the amount of costs in there, there's not going to be a problem? MS. CAPASSO: No. MS. RAWSON: Yes, why don't you read it in. MS. CAPASSO: Do you want me to read the whole thing or just the part where she agrees to abate the violations? MS. RAWSON: Well, probably you're going to have to say that there is a violation and then you're going to read the last part. MS. CAPASSO: Okay. The violations noted in the referenced notice of violation are accurate and I stipulate to their existence. Florida Building Code 2007th edition, Chapter One, Permits, Section 105. 1, Fences and Walls, All Districts; Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 5.03.02.A, unpermitted dilapidated fence. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $81 and I think it's 51 cents -- 15 cents incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing. They will abate all violations by obtaining any and all Collier County building permits along with inspections and Certificate of Completion for perimeter fence at 3994 Mercantile Avenue within 60 days from signing or a fine of $100 dollars per day for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours Page 19 1611 BJ5y 222010 of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all cost of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion -- I'll entertain a motion -- MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation agreement. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: That carries unanimously. MR. KAUFMAN: We're going to make a motion to turn down the temperature here. MR. UESPERANCE: Yes, I'd like to second that, please. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think that we're all in favor of a little cooler environment, if it's possible. MR. DEAN: I thought you ought to turn it off. It's too cold. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next stipulation would be Garza. (Speakers were duly sworn.) Page 20 -All 164. i B5 `- July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Maria, would you like to read the stipulation into the record. 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 $84.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; abate all violations by applying for and obtaining a Collier County building permit or a demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of Completion/Occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. That 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 provision of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. and Mrs. Garza, do you understand the stipulation agreement and agree to it? MRS. GARZA: Yes. MR. GARZA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You got that? MR. UESPERANCE: It's not on -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Is this residence currently occupied? MRS. GARZA: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: It is? MR. GARZA: Yeah. MR. UESPERANCE: I have a question. Is the 120 days Page 21 16WIB5 4 Jury 22, zo 10 sufficient? MRS. GARZA: No, sir. No, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: One hundred twenty days is not enough? MRS. GARZA: I need more -- about three more months. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can I ask -- excuse me, ma'am, can I ask when you signed this stipulated agreement? MRS. GARZA: This one? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes. MRS. GARZA: Yesterday. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And did you learn about new events that happened since yesterday and today that now requesting so much more time? MRS. GARZA: Well, I need more time because I don't have enough money, you know. I need -- I just have 200 a month that -- for fixing, you know, I can fix the house. That's why I need more time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So now you're requesting that the stipulated agreement be changed to seven months? MRS. GARZA: Yes, if they can, you know. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, we can do that, if it's agreed upon by the board. And I understand that the reason behind it is because you're on a fixed income and it will take you that amount of time to come up with the money necessary to make the repairs? MRS. GARZA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any questions from the board? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes. Is it fair to say that these conditions or repairs are exterior items, items that are on the outside of the home? MRS. GARZA: Outside of the home. The boards -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: There's no health or welfare problems or issues, there are just exterior maintenance items? MRS. GARZA: No, I don't have no help. I don't know where to go. Page 22 161:1 85 4 July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Maria, would you like to -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: The exterior of the house is very poor. We did not go inside the house so I can't verify if it is a health and safety issue. MR. UESPERANCE: My point is these are exterior issues that we're looking at today. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, yes. MR. UESPERANCE: There are exterior issues, we have no health and welfare issues at all. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Not that I'm aware of. MR. UESPERANCE: On the outside. Okay. MR. ORTEGA: Is this an elevated structure? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: The railings are not intact? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It isn't a mobile home, it's an actual house that was built back in the 1940's, so it's on bricks. MR. ORTEGA: And we're two feet, three feet, 10 feet in the air? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Probably like three feet in the air. It is on blocks. I don't know what the inside floor looks like or structurally how it's -- have holes or whatever, because we did not go inside. The actual owner lives in the house, because this is a house that was inherited through their father, parents. And three of the brothers and sisters own the house. One of them lives in the house and the other two of course live somewhere else. But she's having a hard time fixing because she's on an income that's fixed because both her and her husband are disabled. And she was hoping to move out of the house because they were going to try to demo it; at least that's the last I heard. She cannot afford at this time to move out because they don't have the money to rent elsewhere. MR. KAUFMAN: It does say in the violation that it has unstable blocks. Is that the blocks that are holding the building? Page 23 1611 B5 4 July 22, aoio MS. RODRIGUEZ: Oh, no, no, those are the blocks to the front of the house. It's got three steps. She already abated that part. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, so that part of the safety is -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: Is corrected, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: So you said this is owned by multiple people. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: A family? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: So it's not just her income that could possibly be used to fix up the premises. MS. RODRIGUEZ: All three of the family members are on fixed income. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the county have any issues with granting seven months to do the work? MS. RODRIGUEZ: I have no objections. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion from the board, or questions? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, also this violation was first observed back in November. So she would have well over a year to abate this. Has there -- how much has been done to try to abate the issue? You said that the front stoop -- or stairs were fixed. Is there -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: She replaced a little bit of the wood because it's an old wood house. She did replace some of the wood on the side of the house and the stairs, and that's it, that's all she's done. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there a motion, perhaps? MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so we have it at 120 days and $200 per day. That's the motion. Is there a second? MR. ORTEGA: I'll second that. Page 24 16 IF.1 B 5 July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? MR. UESPERANCE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Opposed. Okay, and the ayes have it, with two in opposition. And you now have 120 days. It was the original amount that you had agreed upon with county yesterday to fix up the issues. Like we tell all of our respondents, if you run into problems meeting that 120 -day time frame, please come back to the board before it expires to request additional time. And it helps if you have a track record of doing works and communicating well with the county investigator. MRS. GARZA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay? MR. GARZA: I got a question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, sir, please. MR. GARZA: If she don't build it, fix it in 120 days, who's going to be fined, her or me? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, what will happen is if you don't finish within the 120 days, you have the opportunity to come back. You can even write a letter requesting a further extension of time. We just ask that you please show us where you've been making some improvements to work towards abating this violation. MRS. GARZA: I understand. Page 25 16 k 1 , 52, 20410 MR. GARZA: Yeah, because she's the one that live at the house. I don't live at the house with her. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I appreciate that. MR. GARZA: Yes. And I want to find out if I'm going to be fined. They gave her enough time to do it and she didn't do it. MRS. GARZA: My husband got sick. MR. GARZA: I'm sick too. MRS. GARZA: No, it's not the same. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I understand. To answer your question, the fines would go against the owners of the building. And we are not in the business of taking anyone's home, we just want to help and make sure that you have a safe place to live. MRS. GARZA: If I don't have enough time, I tell her. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right. Very good. MRS. GARZA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Good luck. Next case would be stipulated agreement for Jose and Avelina Ramero. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. RODRIGUEZ: She is not here today. She couldn't make it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you have information as to why or -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: She works, and her husband is out of the state. She couldn't drive up here, so -- she has no driver's license. But she couldn't make it. She did sign the stip. so she did agree. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, we'll take that into consideration. Thanks, Maria. Would you like to read it into record. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay Page 26 1611 ,Yq,52o1o� operational costs in the amount of $80 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; abate all violations by: Must apply 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 90 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: Is there any questions from the board? MR. ORTEGA: Yes. With regards to the structure itself, it's completely erected? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No, it's halfway done. She has pulled the permit for it. She was supposed to get it out today or tomorrow, and then they were supposed to start on it, because she's ready for this thing to be over with. So I'm hoping that it will be finished within the next 30 days, but we went ahead and gave her a little bit more time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: If not, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? Page 27 1611 A JUIP2 Zoio MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the ayes have it unanimously. Thanks, ma'am. That's the end of our stipulations. Cherie', would you like a 10- minute break? Anybody on the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, seeing that, we'll go right into public hearings. The first hearing is done, the second one is withdrawn. Is it all the way down to Palm Lake, LLC. And Azure, I'll go for some guidance on how you want to handle these. If they're similar, maybe we can hear testimony and then just vote on each one individually. MS. SORRELS: There's a total of five cases. I would definitely like to do that with the permitting case and the property maintenance case. We have a second property maintenance case which is covering electrical I would like to have heard separately, unlicensed and inoperable heard separately, and litter heard separately. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let's go ahead and take them one at a time, then. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And sir, you're an attorney, correct? Page 28 16 11 B5 01 Jury 22, Zoio MR. ERICKSON: Lewis Erickson, here on behalf of Palm Lakes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So you're kind of exempt from that. MR. ERICKSON: Right, yeah, I didn't think I'd be testifying, but -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Since this is a case being brought by Collier County, we'll let them read the case into record and then we'll discuss it. MR. ERICKSON: Okay, that's what I would appreciate. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 54, Article 6, Section 54 -181 and Section 54 -179. Description of violation: Litter consisting of but not limited to wood, metal, buckets, glass, furniture, plastic and other debris scattered throughout the property. Location/address where violation exists: 3131 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio 61842240009. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Palm Lake, LLC, 1000 Jorie Boulevard, Suite 44, Oak Brook, Illinois, 60523. Registered agent, Gregory Urbancic, 4001 Tamiami Trail, Suite 300, Naples, Florida, 34103. Date violation first observed: March 4th, 2010. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: March 4th, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: March 14th, 2010. Date of reinspection: June 16th, 2010. Violation remains. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Real quick, just procedural, Azure, if you're going to have the officer also present testimony, we'd like to swear him in ahead of time. MS. SORRELS: That's fine. I'm not sure if he will need to, but might as well do it if he does. Page 29 16 1*1i., 8 5 w July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And then we're going to have to go through this on each case, since they're all separate. (Corporal Mike Nelson was duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? CORPORAL NELSON: Corporal Mike Nelson. N- E- L- S -O -N. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Since it's your case, if you'd like to present. MS. SORRELS: Good morning, gentlemen. For the record, Investigator Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CENA20100002928 pertaining to the violation of litter consisting of but not limited to wood, metal, buckets, glass, furniture, plastic bags, bottles and other debris, located at 3131 Tamiami Trail East, Folio 61842240009. Personal service was conducted on March 4th, 2010. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Exhibit B, pictures one through 24, all dated the 21 st of July, 2010. MR. UESPERANCE: May I ask a question before you post those pictures? MS. SORRELS: Sure. MR. UESPERANCE: The registered agent was notified of this hearing, correct? MS. SORRELS: That is correct, sir. MR. UESPERANCE: And do we know a reason why the registered agent is not present? MS. SORRELS: From my understanding he is just -- he serves at the registered agent, not as the representative to the property owner. The gentleman, Mr. Erickson, has been retained by the property owner, Mr. McKay, who I did speak with on the 19th that did confirm he received the notices of hearing and that he had obtained his services. MR. UESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: Has he seen the pictures? Page 30 1601�*%B 5 5 10 '� MS. SORRELS: Yes, he has. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion. Do we have a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Dean. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? And the ayes have it. MS. SORRELS: Gentlemen, if I may, before we start reviewing all these photos, let me explain the property that we're speaking of here. This property is Palm Lake Mobile Home Park. The property is owned by one person, who is Mr. McKay. It's actually listed as Palm Lakes, LLC. The mobile homes, there's a total of 60 lots, and the mobile homes and the travel trailers are owned by individuals. Whether they reside in them or rent them out, I don't have any knowledge of who's who on that. But all the violations obviously are done by the tenants and the owners of the mobile homes, not necessarily Mr. McKay. But I just wanted to kind of lay that out there that this is what we're dealing with, that the property owner was separate the owners of mobile homes and residents. Page 31 16t 185' July zz, zoio CHAIRMAN KELLY: So is this a deed restricted community where they have their own bylaws? MS. SORRELS: No, it is not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So you're -- basically to reiterate, each of the individual home sites, the site, the land itself is owned by one person? MS. SORRELS: No, the land in total -- maybe I'll help you by giving you a visual here. The land in total is owned by Mr. McKay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Including all of the individual home sites? MS. SORRELS: Correct. The only thing that is owned separately is just directly the mobile homes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, got it. MR. LEFEBVRE: So it's like a land lease, is that what you're talking? MS. SORRELS: Correct. It's considered a mobile home rental park. MR. ERICKSON: If I may speak briefly on this, this whole issue of the five complaints that we have here, as I understand it, we have a mobile home park that is pretty much in a dilapidated condition. The five cases are five significant issues, I don't think anybody's here to dispute that. The problem that we have is that I believe there's like 60 units in there, and the vast majority of them are occupied. It is obviously a low rent mobile home park that needs significant improvements. And it may need to be shut down. The infrastructure -- the pictures and everything will show here the infrastructure has serious problems. And we're not here -- I'm not going to be here disputing hardly anything that the code enforcement officer is saying today. This is apparently a rather dilapidated park that this is the first significant hearing time that has been brought by code enforcement Page 32 161 B5 `t July 22, 2010 before this board to figure out what we're going -- what needs to be done and what is going to be done about this situation. It's like -- it's crunch time, I recognize. It's time that something, a plan has to be devised to make it -- bring it up to code, an acceptable code and deal with it. But the problem is that we do have numerous tenants in the park. There's crime problems in the park, there's, as she indicated on this first one, there's litter. There's going to be electrical problems, there's broken windows. There are problems with the park, and that definitely have to be addressed. So our main concern, my main concern on behalf of Mr. McKay and the LLC that owns it is figuring out where we go from here and what type of time frame we're going to be looking at from here to obviously correct a situation that's going to need some significant corrections. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I appreciate you coming forth and being so willing to work with us. And it will make the proceedings go a lot faster now that there's almost just a general admission that there are violations that exist. And what we'd like to do is to continue that kind of dialogue when we get to the point where we talk about how we're going to rectify the situation, the time frame that's going to be needed and so forth. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just a suggestion. Is there a way that we can work on a stipulated agreement? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure? MS. SORRELS: We had discussed a stipulation agreement with Mr. Erickson. We thought that it would probably be best to have the hearing so that way a definite reasonable amount of time could be given with you guys hearing the circumstances of the legalities involved with property owners and individual mobile homeowners, that you would be able to maybe provide him with more reasonable Page 33 16 11 B5 � July 22, 2010 time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Outside your normal stipulation time frame? MS. SORRELS: Correct, yes. MR. ERICKSON: My suggestion would be -- quite frankly, I was involved in one other case involving the -- Ms. Garretson on a magistrate hearing in which there was a violation against a particular unit in the park that was owned by the other person, and that was about a month and a half ago that I was involved in that case. I originally -- when I got these notices, I thought these were similar, just different notices as to five different mobile homes. Until today I was not aware that this is a huge full -blown issue involving the park. My suggestion, I'm not sure what your alls procedure is, would be that we be allowed a continuance until the next hearing to give us time to work with code enforcement to see if we can enter into a stipulation and a proposal to address each of the issues in a time frame that we'd need for each of the issues. Because quite frankly, I'm in a position today that I have no idea what type of time frame is going to be needed on these issues. I don't know -- I know I've been involved before in closing down mobile home parks, and I know what a problematic area that is in getting the tenants out of the park. Even if we want to get them out of the park it's very difficult. So my suggestion would be that we be given until the next hearing to see what we can work out with the code enforcement officer to stipulate to and then that would make it easier for everybody to proceed, I think. This is obviously a problem that has been going on for years. And just as a general time frame, I would assume it's probably going to take a year to resolve a problem of this magnitude. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Just to answer your first question, Page 34 16111'P5 4 Juy z, zoio the code enforcement department has two avenues for enforcement. For smaller, quicker issues they have the special magistrate, which is a single person. For a little bit more complex, they have a group of volunteers. And thank you for rising our jobs to that level. We appreciate you recognizing the situation. I think, and I don't want to speak out of turn, but I believe the county would prefer to have it under this venue, only because you have citizens here. We're not representing anyone except the public at large. And to have these minds get together and be creative we maybe would be more lenient understanding the situation. We might be able to go outside what their standard stipulated agreement time frames are and so forth. But given your request, let's go ahead and ask the county if they do want to pull all of these cases from the record today and give you guys a chance to work on maybe an agreement outside this board. But it's up to them to pull it or not. MS. SORRELS: Gentlemen, I do understand that Mr. Erickson has been just recently made aware of this. However, Mr. McKay, the property owner, has been made aware of this now since the month of March. Mr. McKay, my supervisor, Patti Petrulli and myself had met with Mr. McKay on Feb -- excuse me, on April 16th. We walked the entire park with him, we pointed out -- and I mean, very detailed, explained to him what needed to be done. Since that conversation, that meeting that we had, I have not heard from Mr. McKay at all. Very little compliance has been met. Mainly the litter is the only thing that's been touched on. Other ones, all the other violations have not even been addressed. And I do understand that there's legalities there, but I would ask that we have the hearings. It's health and safety. Some of these structures are in very bad repair. And the fire department made site visits with us as well. And they have concerns, not underneath the fire Page 35 1611 B5 July 22, 2010 code, but just as firefighters, the fire hazards that these people are in. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. If we do continue, I'll ask that the board keep in mind the balance act between the safety of the public and the legality of possibly eviction notice time frames and so forth. With that being said, it looks like we'll go ahead and continue and hear each of the cases, and we will certainly be openminded to your situation and the legalities behind it. MR. KAUFMAN: Can I ask a question of the county before we begin? MS. SORRELS: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Is this a case -- there are five cases -- of where it's reported by one person, individual -- we certainly don't want to know who it is -- or is this a report of many people that has caused the case to be brought before us? MS. SORRELS: I'm not sure I understand your question, sir. Are you talking -- MR. KAUFMAN: Was this one person who said I have a problem with A, B, C, D, or it is many people that have reported this? MS. SORRELS: Sir, I cannot answer that accurately due to the fact that the complaint came in to us anonymously, and the complaint was the general overall condition of the park. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: To further clarify, was the Sheriffs Department involved in making any type of complaints? MS. SORRELS: I do believe that in the complaint -- again, I'm not sure how the complaint actually all originated. I know that it was trickled down through people. I do believe there was concerns of the Sheriff s Office activity inside this park. And Corporal Nelson would be able to testify to calls and stuff within the past year of that park. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You were going to show us some pictures of the park. MS. SORRELS: Yes, correctly. Page 36 16d1"65 14 July 22, 2010 I'm just going to real quick just read through a couple of my dates. On the 4th of March I had made a site visit with myself and Supervisor Petrulli. We had observed litter scattered throughout the property. Supervisor Petrulli conducted personal service with a Notice of Violation on the registered agent. We also had made another site visit on the 19th, myself and the Sheriff s Office and the Fire Department, and again walked the entire park with the property manager, Robert Burns, and again pointed out specifically to the violations that were in the park. And the first picture that you see, it's kind of sideways, but that's okay, that's actually a warehouse building and that's just some metal and some wood that is leaned up against it. This is old furniture just sitting out in the weather, being rained on. Storage of ladders, coolers, plastic buckets alongside the mobile homes. Sinks, chairs. Plastic. Whether it be plastic bags or plastic tarps that's just rotted away from the weather and then started blowing around the property. Old appliances not being thrown away on the side of the shed. You see coolers and everything being stored outside. Not necessarily considered litter, but it falls underneath the abandoned, derelict items. They need to be stored within -- inside of a closed structure. Again, materials of different natures, wood blocks, metal being stored. Pieces of wood laying around. Shopping carts full of beer bottles. Other stuff stored behind inbetween the mobile homes. Piles of debris -- or vegetational debris, excuse me. MR. UESPERANCE: How is trash picked up in this community, individually or do they have dumpsters? Page 37 1611 B5 N July 22, 2010 MS. SORRELS: They have dumpsters, two of them, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MS. SORRELS: Just pieces of wood kind of stacked up to make like a makeshift fence. Materials of wood and metal stored inbetween the warehouse and mobile home two. Old furniture, doors. MR. UESPERANCE: Do we have a GIS perspective available? MS. SORRELS: Yes. I was going to ask if you'd like to see. I have a GIS and I also have an actual from a 1998 reroof permit. I actually have a site plan. MR. UESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: Does this area have city water and sewer? MS. SORRELS: Yes, it does. Caught me off guard on that one. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are these part of your original Exhibit A? MS. SORRELS: Yes. This, the property in question, the mobile home park, this is at the corner of Airport Road and Tamiami Trail East. It's just behind the -- well, what used to be the Property Appraiser's building. As you make that corner, the Property Appraiser's building was right there on the corner and this is right past it. The next thing that I have to show you is the lot site plan. Approximately 60 lots. As I had mentioned, we had made several site visits on the property. We had spoken with Robert Burns, the property manager. We've also met with the property owner, Mr. McKay and explained again all the violations and specifically very detailed explained too what we considered litter and what we would consider abandoned, derelict items, what would need to be stored inside an enclosed structure and what obviously would need to be discarded. My last site visit obviously was as of yesterday, the 21st of July. 161 u� ��ZO, 4 0 The violation remained. I prepared the packet on the 25th of June for the Code Enforcement Board. Personal service was conducted with a Notice of Hearing with the property manager, Robert Burns. And I followed that up with a phone call to Mr. McKay on the 19th. I called him, asked him if he was aware of the hearings. He indicated that yes, his registered agent had informed him of it and that he had obtained the services of Mr. Erickson. He had made a couple comments to me that made me feel like he was not quite sure how the violations would be abated so I clarified that again. Those were more pertaining to the other cases than this litter case. And that's it. As of right now the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Mr. Erickson, usually this is where the respondent or representative would talk or defend against there being a violation in the first place. We as a board need to next decide if a violation exists or if doesn't exist. If it does exist, then we go forth with a corrective action, time frames, what needs to be done and so forth. So if you'd like to speak to whether or not a violation exists, we'd enter that now. If you don't have any objections, we'll go ahead and rule as a board that it does, and then we can move towards time frames and so forth. MR. ERICKSON: The only comment I'd like to make and the concern I have is the -- may bring Ms. Rawson in on this -- is the legal effect of most of what I saw there were items that appeared to me to belong to the various tenants that are stored outside their units. And I've never -- I haven't researched this, I'm not sure I understand, code can only go after the owner of the land. But again, my concern is what Mr. McKay can do to force these people or even to remove the items that are stored. Obviously the litter in the park he can pick up and he is responsible for that. But my Page 39 1611 185 �1 July 22, 2010 concern is the personal property that clearly belongs to other people that is stored in their -- on their site. I'm not sure what his legal rights are, so I want the board to take that into consideration. And as to -- and I'm not sure what can be ordered against him as to disposing of other people's property that's on their rented lot. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Well, it seems to me that this is litter that is scattered around the park. And I think his job as a landlord is to tell all of the people there's an order from the code enforcement this litter's got to be picked up, if you don't pick it up within a certain amount of time it will be removed. Because otherwise I'm the one that's going to be held responsible because I'm the owner of the land. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Mr. Erickson, if by chance you were to research and find that there is some kind of law that limits his ability to do that, you do have the appeal process, and that would certainly be entered, and it would be great testimony. MR. ERICKSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anything further? MR. ERICKSON: No, I have nothing further. CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that, do we have any questions of the board? MR. ORTEGA: I do have a question. Based on this layout that I'm looking at, each individual parcel or trailer area, is that just for the trailer? In other words, is the debris placed outside the area? If the leased area is each individual parcel and the debris or abandoned materials are placed outside of that area, we go back to the property owner again. MS. SORRELS: Well, in some instances, yes, it would be in like the general common area of the property. Others would be -- well, it would be on either side. I know the way that the lot is -- or that site plan looks, it looks like there's common space in between each one. Page 40 1611 'B5 M July 22, 2010 Whether that is an accurate statement, I cannot say. I never had a survey done of the property so I couldn't tell you if there is actually common space in between each of them. My understanding actually is just that lot lines go, it's one lot, next lot, there is no common space in between them. So if it's not on one lot, it would definitely be on the other lot. MR. KAUFMAN: I really don't think that matters much. The owner of the property owns all the property -- MR. UESPERANCE: I agree. MR. KAUFMAN: -- whether the trailer is occupying all of those rectangles or not. And based on the photos that you showed, I'd like to make a motion we find them in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. MR. DEAN: I'd like -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Discussion? MR. DEAN: Well, my comment would be yes, the man owns the land, but obviously if you write a lease and somebody leases the property, it's theirs and you can't enter there. I mean, if these people have say a year's lease, you just can't go there, that's his property for a year. So you're probably talking about the overall area where maybe they picked up the garbage cans or some of the places might be vacant sites. Does every one have a trailer on it, every site? MS. SORRELS: There are a few vacant ones. MR. DEAN: So those vacant ones might have a lot of junk in them. So maybe that could be his responsibility. But as far as an individual that signs a lease, he has rights, and that owner can't cross over in his property. And the gentleman is correct when he said it's their personal property, he can't go take it off the property. MR. UESPERANCE: I would not agree with that comment. I would agree with our attorney's opinion, Jean's opinion as to how that Page 41 161185 � July 22, 2010 should be approached. MS. RAWSON: My guess is they don't have written leases. I would be surprised if they do, and so they would be month to month, which like would be a 30 -day. And this may be a situation in which -- and of course that'll be up to the owner of the property, which if he doesn't get any compliance from his tenants that he might have to evict some of them. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: We've had cases before, and I remember a restaurant in particular where there was a sign issue, and it went back. We had several cases where it had gone back to the landowner, not to the tenant. So this I feel is definitely a case where you have to look at the owner of the property as ultimately being responsible. It is his responsibility to keep the property clean and maintained. If they were individually owned, like in some other places, some other mobile parks, then you'd go after the individual owners. Just like a condo association, you go after the condo association if it's common property, you don't go after the individual owner. So this is I think very similar in respect to -- MR. UESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I call the question, please. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And no discussion. All those in favor? MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, the ayes have it unanimously. Now we can work on a resolution. Jean has spoken to potentially Page 42 16 liu�y 2 , 010 N having the owner of the property either revise or institute a lease rental agreement that requires each individual tenant to police their own area. The county has had great success forming community task forces to help with blight and foreclosure homes, keeping them clean using community involvement directly one -on -one with the county. If for instance the owner of the property was willing to front a couple of dumpster fees and get everybody in the community together on a Saturday to clean up, maybe that would help. With that being said, I'll open it up to any suggestions. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question. Do you know what ultimately this owner wants to do with the property? Does he want to maintain it as a mobile home park or does he look at possibly changing the use of this property? MR. ERICKSON: I don't know specifically, I haven't discussed it in depth with him at all. But it is my understanding that he does want to continue it as a mobile home park. I've not been given any indication that his intent is to close it down at this time, sell it nor do anything else with it. And the concern is, you know, I think as long as people are in compliance with their leases, I believe you have almost like a year before you can evict anyone from a mobile home park. And that's one of the concerns I've looked at when I first got involved in this case is the rules and regulations. Because the other case I had, I was trying to figure out if this guy paid his lease is there even something that allows us to evict him because there's a code violation assessed against my client. And I couldn't find that there was. Fortunately in that case the guy had not paid his rent and so we were able to evict him. That's what my concern is, whether we can just kick these people out because they're storing something on their lot. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess it comes down to what's in the lease. Page 43 16i4B5" July 22, 20 10 If there's something in the lease that says that you can't have items stored outside the unit, it would violate the lease, you might be able to evict them at that point. MR. ERICKSON: Well, there are rules and regulations, that was the first thing I looked at. I've got them here. And you know, there's a regulation all homes, sheds and other things must be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. So we do have a regulation here that would be -- that I highlighted a long time ago that would clearly seem to me to be the basis of his legal action against these people. Then it doesn't matter what the courts would do as far as allowing them. But that's where, you know, I agree that my expectation is that upon the conclusion of this hearing we will be giving a notice to the park throughout the park as to what needs to be done in coming up with a plan of action. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question, and Jean brought it up. Does he have leases? As a normal course of business, does he have the people who live there sign a lease? MR. ERICKSON: I'm not sure. I believe about half of them have leases and some of them don't. I think it's one of those situations to where the original idea was to have leases, but it's not as well run a business with the leases as it probably should have been. MR. KAUFMAN: That was question one. Question two is do they have, as they do in condo associations or in gated communities for that matter, rules that you can't do this, that or the other thing? MR. ERICKSON: Right, that's what I was just looking at here and just referred to. There is -- it says Palm Lake -- in fact this says Palm Lake Mobile Home Park Rules and Regulations, and it has a date on it March, 2010. So this may be something that he came up with after meeting with -- after that March meeting, I would presume. MS. SORRELS: Actually, I was going to comment on that. That is actually correct. After we had made the property owner aware of all Page 44 1611 85 4 July Za, zoio the violations on the property, on one of my site visits, I believe it was March 19th, one of my site visits I had spoken with the property manager, Robert Burns, and he had informed me that he was mailed an abundance of these rules and regulations, and he was to hand each one of them out to the tenants or the owners, whoever is residing there, and they had to sign a paper confirming they had received this. And it was all the rules and regulations. And they actually -- and the copies that he had of the code violations that were in existence for Collier County were actually highlighted in each booklet. MR. KAUFMAN: I think that if we take a look at this, it's no different than a house in the ritziest part of Naples. If you put stuff outside your house and you're in violation, we don't generally provide a whole lot of time to pick it up because it's not a big deal to clean it up. And as Mr. Kelly has stated, as far as the time frame on resolving this particular issue, it doesn't appear that it would take that much time to have this abated. MR. ERICKSON: I would agree. MR. KAUFMAN: And for that matter, I would think that a reasonable amount of time may be you're giving the people who live there 30 or 60 days to do it, as long as there's no health or safety issue with the stuff that's strewn about. I saw a boat or two there; I don't know how that fits into the equation. But I would suggest 90 days would be a sufficient time to have it cleaned up. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 90 days is actually probably too much time. They've already been noticed in March from a letter. So I would have to say that a shorter period would be -- MR. KAUFMAN: What do your rules state as far as the time frame and once you've been notified that you are in violation of the litter law, if you will? MR. ERICKSON: I don't see right offhand here any specific notification, but I would -- I would request 60 days opportunity, and -- Page 45 161F1 85 July 22, aoio because one of the things you mentioned, the cars and things. I think that's going to be another issue that we deal with later, the various vehicles and things of that sort. I know there's a problem there. But with the litter, and I would kind of like to get everything reasonably consistent. But I would think 60 days, as far as this board is concerned, that that would give us an opportunity to send a notice out saying that we're going to have everything cleaned up, give the tenants an opportunity, like 30 days to get their stuff taken care of and then we have 30 days to deal with whatever is not taken. So that's why I would think a 60 -day -- MR. KAUFMAN: Let me modify my motion to make it 60 days then. MR. LEFEBVRE: And what's the fine? CHAIRMAN KELLY: If we could, could we have county read in the recommendations so we get all the verbiage, and then we can fill in the blanks with the motion afterwards? MR. KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. SORRELS: County's recommendation is the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational cost in the $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: The respondent must remove and properly dispose of litter, abandoned items consisting of but not limited to wood, metal, buckets, glass, furniture, plastic bags and bottles and other debris scattered throughout the property within "X" number of days of this hearing or "X" amount per day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure? MS. SORRELS: Okay, fine. 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 property fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the Page 46 16 IE1ul,- 8��01� 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: Thank you. Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Filling in the blanks. Within 60 days of the hearing is the first blank, and $200 a day for the second blank, and the date starts today. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jean, can we do that? Since representation is here, can we start it today? MS. RAWSON: Well, 60 days from today, yes, we can. I mean, he won't get the order probably till next week but yes, you can start it today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So we can waive notice, if you will? MR. ERICKSON: That's fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's acceptable? Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, 60 days on this one, and $200 per day thereafter. We might be able to roll into the next few. That does conclude Page 47 1611 JulfI5 20 A the first case. So we'll go ahead -- MR. ERICKSON: As in all these cases, if there's a problem, as you've mentioned to everybody else who's come up here, if there's a problem and we notify the board before the 60 -day period, we have that right on all these; is that correct? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Absolutely correct. You can certainly request motion for extensions. We love to see progress. MR. ERICKSON: Right, I understand. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Everybody will need to be sworn in. Of course not you, Mr. Erickson, because you're representing, but for each case if you're going to provide testimony. And Corporal, I don't know if you have anything to put in on these, but if you do. (Azure Sorrels was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 2.01.00(A). Description of violation: Approximately nine unlicensed inoperable vehicles are parked/stored on property but not limited to lots 38, 31, 275 18, nine and two. Vehicles across from lot five. Location/address where violation exists: 3131 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio 61842240009. Name and address of person in charge of violation location: Palm Lake LLC, 1000 Jorie Boulevard, Suite 44, Oak Brook, Illinois, 60523. Registered agent, Gregory Urbancic, 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, Florida, 34103. Date violation first observed: March 4th, 2010. Date owner /person in charge given Notice of Violation: March 12th9 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 1 st, 2010. Date of reinspection: June 16th, 2010. 16111 b b M July zz, 20 10 Results of reinspection: Violations remain. MS. SORRELS: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEB2010003082, pertaining to the violation of unlicensed inoperable vehicles on property located at 3131 Tamiami Trail East. Folio No. 61842240009. Personal service was conducted on March 12th, 2010. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Exhibit B, one through 15, pictures dated 7/21/2010. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the ayes have it. MR. KAUFMAN: I'm assuming that you've seen those pictures? MR. ERICKSON: Yes, I've seen the pictures. MS. SORRELS: On March 4th, myself and Supervisor Patti Petrulli made site visit, observed several unlicensed vehicles on the property. THE COURT REPORTER: Please slow down. Page 49 1611 85 1 July 22, 2010 MS. SORRELS: I'm sorry. I talked with -- excuse me, Supervisor Petrulli and myself spoke with Property Manager Robert Burns and informed him of the violations. He stated that he would address the violations of the unlicensed vehicles with the tenants and also the property owner. Made a site visit on the 12th of March and confirmed that the violations were still there, and personal service was conducted on the registered agent with a Notice of Violation. April 9th, I had made a site visit with myself and the Sheriffs Office and spoke with Robert Burns, walked the entire property. We pointed out all the unlicensed vehicles. A couple of them are RV trailers. On the 16th of April, 2010, myself and Supervisor Petrulli met with property owner on -site, Mr. McKay on -site. Walked the property with him as well and pointed out all the different violations. May 13th, made a site visit. The violation remains. Spoke with the property manager, Robert Burns, and he stated that he was addressing but wasn't sure what the property owner was -- how he was handling it on his end. On June 16th, site visit, violation remains. The 30th of June, 2010, I prepared the packet for CEB. Personal service of the Notice of Hearing was conducted on the 9th of July with the property manager. I spoke with Mr. McKay, the property owner, on the 19th of July, made him aware or asked him if he was aware of the hearings. He indicated that yes, he was. And on the 21 st of July, 2010, myself and the Sheriff s Office made the last site visit to confirm the violations remain. This is an unlicensed commercial vehicle that's parked beside the warehouse. CHAIRMAN KELLY: MS. SORRELS: Sure. Can I ask a quick question? Page 50 1611 Bj522410 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is this the maintenance vehicle that they use on -site only? MS. SORRELS: I have not actually seen it used. I've only seen it -- that was one of the original vehicles that was spotted on the initial site visit, and it's the one that remains unlicensed. And I haven't seen it used. MR. KAUFMAN: Were there any comments made by Mr. Burns when you asked him about that vehicle? MS. SORRELS: He didn't respond to who owned it, he just knew that, you know, it was there. He didn't say that he knew the owner of it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The only reason why we ask is because if it never leaves the property, I think if memory serves me correct, it doesn't need to be tagged. I think it's considered personal farm and it's exempt. MS. SORRELS: Right. Well, no, he definitely did not indicate that they use that vehicle, that it was not something that he drove around or used. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. SORRELS: This is one of the travel trailers that's located at lot 60, and it is considered a recreational vehicle, not a mobile home, and it would be required to have a current license plate attached to it. This one expired in '99; I believe one of the pictures show that. MR. KAUFMAN: That's not occupied, is it? MS. SORRELS: No, that one is not. This is just showing that the wheels are still attached to the travel trailer, indicating that it can be connected at any time and moved. Just a closeup of the tag showing the expiration of '99. This is a vehicle that's located at lot 54 with an unlicensed -- actually, it's got a tag on it, it's just expired. This is another vehicle with an expired tag. '09 was the expiration date, or year, I should say. Page 51 ibl�Ju�B52o�o That's just the front of it. This is lot 38. Lot 38 also has a travel trailer, a fifth wheel recreational vehicle on this property. I'm showing here that the tires are attached to it and indicating that it can be hooked up to a fifth wheel hitch and removed from its location. MR. ORTEGA: Is someone living in there? MS. SORRELS: There was somebody living in that one during initial visits; however, as of yesterday it appeared to be vacant. This is the rear of the vehicle with obviously no tag attached. And yes, that is an illegal addition added to it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: May I pause you for a moment. MS. SORRELS: Sure. MR. L'ESPERANCE: If that last fifth wheel unit is now vacant, can we jump to the conclusion that it was not owned by the person who was formerly living in it? MS. SORRELS: That would be correct. I did speak with the gentleman on my initial visit, with the gentleman that was on that property, indicated that he resided there, that he was a renter, not the owner. And I guess he was looking into possibly buying the travel trailer from the owner, but there was a question of the title. And I think that's one of the reasons why it never got licensed. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Can we ask another question, and that would be does the owner of the mobile home park own any of these individual units? MS. SORRELS: The only one that was indicated to me by the property manager and the property owner was the first travel trailer that you saw the picture of with the expired '99 tag on it, that he owns that one. CHAIRMAN KELLY: In this case, the additional structure that was built onto the side of this, that's not part of this violation, correct? MS. SORRELS: No, it's not, it would fall underneath the -- for unpermitted structures, yes. Page 52 161'iB5� July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: So we'll leave that out of this testimony, since it's not -- MS. SORRELS: Sorry. MR. KAUFMAN: The pipe that I see coming out of the back, is that a sewer line? MS. SORRELS: That would be correct, sir. This is Lot 31. Thirty -one, this is the second car that's been on this property. The first one was a Saturn. That one's been removed. And as of yesterday this one was brought in. It expired in March of 2010. This van at Lot 13 was one of the original vehicles from my first site visit; however, it's just moved to a different lot. Am I still going too fast? I need to find a slow motion button. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that all of them? MS. SORRELS: That's all the photos. MR. KAUFMAN: And I had just one question. What's the zoning? MS. SORRELS: It's zoned residential home -- excuse me, mobile home rental park. MR. DEAN: Okay. Even though it's on a commercial street. So was there a permit back -- MS. SORRELS: We're going to address that in a permitting case that I have on the property. MR. DEAN: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any objections, Mr. Erickson? MR. ERICKSON: I don't have any comments on these. CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that -- MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to find them in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion, second. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? Page 53 1611.1 85-1 July 22, zo 10 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the ayes carry unanimously. And now we'll move on to the county's recommendation. MS. SORRELS: The county recommends the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Must obtain and affix a current valid license plate to each vehicle, trailer and repair defects so vehicle is immediately operable or store within the confines of a completely enclosed structure or remove offending vehicles /trailers from the property within "X" number of days of this hearing or an "X" amount fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when 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: Quick question. Is there any difference between removing litter and removing a vehicle as far as time frame goes? MR. ERICKSON: I think they would be the same. I would ask that we be consistent on it; I think it would make it easier for us to deal with. Page 54 161; B 5 F� July 22, 2010 MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. In your write -up that was provided on March of 2010, does it mention unlicensed vehicles in there? MS. SORRELS: Are you speaking to the rules and regulations? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. SORRELS: I believe, sir, it does. Vehicles and parking. I don't see anything that actually clearly states unlicensed vehicles. It does talk about vehicle repairs, only minor motor vehicle repairs may be made on personal vehicles at resident's space. Motor vehicles not in operating condition -- excuse me, I stand corrected. Motor vehicles not in operating condition or without current license plate are not allowed in the community for more than 24 hours. Vehicles in violation will be towed away at vehicle's owner's or homeowner's expense. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion. To be consistent, provide the same 60 days. And a fine of $100 a day will be imposed for each day the violation remains. MR. LEFEBVRE: One hundred dollars or two? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, because you had two on the last one. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, 200. MR. LEFEBVRE: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 55 161 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. That one's done. And the same consideration would be given in all these cases for a time frame. Okay, great, let's go ahead and take a 10- minute recess, and we'll be back at 10:40. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. Did you want to make a change in the agenda now? MS. WALDRON: Sure. If we could go out of order and take number 10 on the agenda next. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any objections from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, let's just have a motion real quick to change the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to change the agenda. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? MR. DEAN: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's no, he's not opposed, we're good. MR. DEAN: I lose. Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're on. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Page 56 16 {i 85 4 July 22, 2010 Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article 6, Section 22- 231.11. The case number, Cherie', is CEPM20100004292. Description of violation: Electrical wiring running to the mobile homes are not in accordance with the current National Electric Code. Electrical meters are not securely fastened, missing covers on energized electrical parts, direct wires and conduit are not buried to code. Location/address where violation exists: 3131 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio 61842240009. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Palm Lake LLC, 1000 Jorie Boulevard, Suite 44, Oak Brook, Illinois, 60523. Registered agent, Gregory Urbancic, 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, Florida, 34103. Date violation first observed: March 12th, 2010. Date owner /person in charge given Notice of Violation: April 2nd, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: May 2nd, 2010. Date of reinspection: May 13th, 2010. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. SORRELS: I understand that we're on some time frames here, so if you don't mind, I'm just going to maybe touch point on the most important dates and then just show the pictures and explain the violations as we go through. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Case number, violations and the rest is probably stipulated, that'd be fine. MS. SORRELS: This is in reference to Case No. CEPM20100004292, pertaining to the violations of electrical wiring provided to mobile home not in accordance with current National Electric Code. The violations that were observed on March 12th, 2010 by myself and Sheriffs Officer Corporal Mike Nelson and also building Page 57 1611 65 4 July 22, 2010 review -- Plan Review Electrical Inspector Daniel Cortez. I do have pictures Exhibit B, one through 28, dated all of 7/21/2010. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MS. SORRELS: On the March 12th visit, Daniel Cortez walked around the entire park with myself and the sheriffs officer and we observed multiple FP &L boxes throughout the park that did not meet current National Electrical Code for many reasons. As we go through the pictures I'll point out some of the violations and what they're supposed to be. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, do you have anything from the inspector to this effect? MS. SORRELS: I do have an e -mail for him. I have not printed it out, but I do have an e -mail for him. However, I did include most of his e -mail -- the codes that he sent to me by e -mail in the Notice of Violation. So if you look at the Notice of the Violation, it states what the sections of the current national code are. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, anything just to keep this out of a hearsay situation. Page 58 1611 95 July 22, 2010 MS. SORRELS: It's in the Notice of Violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great, thank you. MS. SORRELS: This is just identification of the property. This is the entrance to Palm Lake Mobile Home Park. This will be the very first lot as you enter on the left -hand side. It shows the two FP &L meters standing there, or mounted there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And those are good meters or -- MS. SORRELS: No, they're not. As you get a closeup, you can see Mr. -- or excuse me -- Corporal Nelson's foot kind of holding it up. He didn't really want to touch it. This is a wiring -- electrical wiring coming from the meters that are in place to have travel trailers plug into. The PVC pipe, which is actually broken off, because it's not conduit, it's actually PVC pipe, is now broken off and the outlet is laying on the ground. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So to clarify, is there an FPL related issue or is it after the meter towards the home? MS. SORRELS: It's after the meter towards the home, which would be the property owner's responsibility. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thank you. Just another picture -- or is that the same picture? Again, this is showing the wiring at the broken end of the PVC pipe going into the ground, which of course would go back up into the FP &L meters. This is another meter kind of -- as you can see, it's kind of crooked and hanging. And that is because the wood that it's mounted to is rotted and deteriorated and is actually pulling away from -- the FP &L meters are actually pulling away from their mounts. And this is a violation of the National Electrical Code. This is the back side of some of the FP &L meters showing the wood deteriorated. MR. KAUFMAN: Does FPL come and read these meters, or is Page 59 161 ulyzP, 0 10 � this one of these electronic -- MS. SORRELS: That, sir, I could not answer. I do know that -- and Corporal Nelson can testify to a lady that we had spoken with on a couple of site visits, but the most recent conversation was yesterday. FP &L refused to turn her electricity on because of the condition of the power coming out of their meter and into her unit. Again, another back side of one of the FP &L meters. This is showing where obviously some kind of a box has been removed and the wires are still coming out of the top of the piping, right there. And obviously I can't tell you if they're live wires, but I wasn't willing to touch it. Go ahead. This is another part of the park. It's actually in the front part. The fence that you're looking at is actually the fence that runs alongside Tamiami Trail, so it would be on the right side of the entrance when you come in. Again, it actually has the right conduit, it's in the proper electrical conduit; however, the conduit has to be buried at a minimum of 18 inches. And that is definitely not buried, and the wires that are coming out of it are not properly capped off, I guess is the word you'd be looking for. This is the same piping, electrical wire, just showing where it's broken off of its box, junction box, I guess would be the appropriate word. Several outlets throughout the park do not have their covers on them, so they are exposed to moisture and water. This is some more conduit. It is proper conduit; however, it's not buried at a minimum of 18 inches. Some more outlets uncovered. This is another set of meters where the piping and stuff has broken away between the meters and the boxes and the piping to the ground. Page 60 B5 F1 July 22, 2010 This is probably one of the most concerned ones that I have. Children do live in this park, and these are for a fact, we know for positive without any doubt, Daniel Cortez indicated that those FP &L meters are live and those are exposed energized parts that anybody can grab and electrocute themselves with. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, could we have one moment, please? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. MS. SORRELS: Should I stop? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just give us a second. (Discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seeing as how we still have a quorum, we can continue. Sorry. Just so everybody knows what happened, Herminio is not feeling well. He might have a medical issue, so he's excused to -- and we hope he's okay. So I'm sorry, go ahead. MS. SORRELS: This is the same FP &L set of meters. This is just another meter where some feeble attempt was made to cover up the energized parts. However, it's just some kind of taping that's been broken away. This also is the same FP &L meter that was indicated to us that when it's hit by a soccer ball or baseball, the unit farthest from it loses their power. Again, the mounting, the wooden mounts for the panels are rotted, causing the panels to detach. This is an FP &L set of meters again that's on the park. And I wanted to point out the white piping is actually PVC piping, it's not electrical conduit, and that is what the wires need to be in. Go ahead. This here is -- if you look just past the AC unit, you'll see a white piping. That is actually coming out of the FP &L meter that you have Page 61 '*ily 22, 2010 6' B just seen, and this piping is running about 50 feet above ground. And again, it needs to be an electrical conduit and it needs to be buried 18 inches below ground. Again, here is the pipe traveling. And here is where it connects into the bottom of the panel. I think there's one more picture of that. And if you could see on the left -- or to the left side of the picture, you can see like a brown conduit pipe and then the white pipe, that's where it seems to be in the bend. It's actually an electrical conduit but the two would not go together, so they're separated, causing the wire to be exposed. Go ahead. And if you don't mind just real quick, I'd like to have Corporal Nelson at least testify to the conversation he had with the lady about the about that FP &L would not -- refused to turn on her electricity because of the condition. CORPORAL NELSON: How are you doing, sir? I was out on the site visit yesterday with code enforcement. I've actually had two of the residents come up; one of them owns four empty mobile homes there in the park. She was going to try and make it today; she could not. She had to abandon her homes because FP &L will not turn the power on to her homes because of the condition of the meters. So she has bought one, had to abandon it, moved into another one, had to abandon it. So now she's actually in possession of four mobile homes in the park that she can't live in because FP &L refuses to turn power on. Also while we were there, you saw the picture of me holding up the electrical conduit with the box on the end. It is live. It was actually powering the RV, the next one over. And it's in an area where the children play. They play soccer, they play ball and stuff out there. Page 62 161 g,501 July 0 She also explained to me that any time the kids are out there playing, if something bumps into that panel, they start losing all the power in those affected mobile homes. So our concern and my concern as a deputy is safety and welfare, especially with young children. They have everybody from infants to teenagers living there in the park. And you can't ask that they live in the park and not be able to play in the open space. Thank you, sir. (Mr. Ortega enters the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Corporal, I have a question for you. CORPORAL NELSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It would seem, you know, with my limited construction knowledge, in order to repair these, they're going to have to shut down power for a period of time. CORPORAL NELSON: Yes, sir, because FP &L won't even attach power to them. CHAIRMAN KELLY: What do you think would be a reasonable time frame under these circumstances to give, for instance, the respondent to handle this situation? Understanding that they are going to have to go without power for a couple of days maybe to get these corrected accurately. CORPORAL NELSON: Honestly, sir, I was rather dismayed. I believe it was March 12th we were there, and we spoke to the property manager and he was like, we have the material and stuff, we can remount the boards. This is now July. Things haven't -- not a single piece of it has been changed. How do you put a time period on the safety of kids? I apologize for not being able to give you a direct answer, but to me you're talking about possibly electrocuting a child, getting a child seriously hurt. I can't put a time limit on that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Page 63 1611 ,B3525 Z�o CORPORAL NELSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Well, we'll probably want to hear from -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm sorry, of the Corporal. MR. KAUFMAN: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry. Okay, Azure, continue. MS. SORRELS: I just wanted to confirm what he was saying. On one of the March visits, I believe, Robert Burns, the property manager, had informed us that he had made contact with an electrical contractor. That was what was asked of him by Mr. McKay. And then once that contact was made, the information was given to Mr. McKay to follow through with. As my personal service on the 9th of July, I had inquired about that, what the status of it was, because I had noticed that there had been no permits issued for any kind of electrical work on the property. And Mr. Burns, the property manager, indicated that he had turned the information over to Mr. McKay and he had heard nothing since. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions of the county? MR. ORTEGA: I do have a question. Am I to understand that bumping this panel will affect the units? MS. SORRELS: This is testimony that I have received and he received as well is that yes, on a particular FP &L meter -- and I can actually show the location of the meter if you'd like me to -- when it is bumped by balls that are being -- you know, soccer balls, any kind of balls that the kids are using to play around with, when it's bumped their electricity does go out. MR. ORTEGA: Then I concur with Corporal Nelson, this is definitely a life safety issue. MS. SORRELS: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Mr. Erickson? MR. ERICKSON: I agree, this is clearly the most serious issue Page 64 1611 Qu5 22, 4010 that's been brought before the board. It needs immediate attention. I don't know myself what's involved, whether you'd have to shut down the whole park to correct it or not. But this is one that clearly needs at least the hot wires addressed immediately. I would recognize that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Thank you. To the board, questions, discussion amongst yourselves? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we find them in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And how about remedy? MR. KAUFMAN: This is obviously a very serious -- ordinarily when we have safety and health, we go as short as one week to remedy a situation. And as far as some of the boxes that are completely exposed, something needs to be done today on those boxes to cover them in one way or another. This can't go on for 30 or 60 days. MR. ERICKSON: I agree. MR. KAUFMAN: This needs to be remedied immediately. MR. LEFEBVRE: The problem is I would assume that most of Page 65 16TIB5 July 22, 2010 this work probably needs permits? MS. SORRELS: Yes, it would, and it would have to be done by a licensed contractor. MR. LEFEBVRE: So that's going to take time to do. Now, with a permit being pulled, how specific -- I mean, does it spell out exactly what they're going to do or could it just be a general -- because I mean, to obviously bury wire 18 inches, I mean, this might have to be broken down into parts, what's being taken care of immediately and then what's buried -- obviously take care of the -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald, I think what's going to happen is when you pull the permit, the permit will reference the codes that go along with those, so it will all be encompassing. MR. ORTEGA: I think some of these things may be abated, particularly if they're an emergency, life safety issue, the building department may look at it differently -- permit or not. MR. KAUFMAN: The one meter that is exposed that needs to be covered, needs to be covered today or tomorrow, whether you put a box around it, a piece of plywood over it, so that no child or -- anybody could go in and touch something and die. CHAIRMAN KELLY: What about something that's easily deployable like one of those orange safety fences or something as simple as caution tape with stakes around these areas? That's something that maybe the manager, on site manager can possibly do himself. MS. SORRELS: Correct, something to barricade it off to prevent children from getting in, absolutely. That's something they could do and it would not require permits or contractors or anything like that. Could buy them some time to do what they need to property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That was just a suggestion. Whatever the thought is of the board. I would like to have county read in the recommendations so we can all the correct verbiage and then we can add to it from there, if that's okay. Page 66 16 I t B5 July 22, 2010 Okay, go ahead. MS. SORRELS: County recommends that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by the respondent must obtain all required Collier County building permits, inspections, Certificate of Completion, and correct all electrical violations by bringing them into compliance with the current national electrical code within "X" amount of days of this hearing or "X" amount of fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. 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: That still wasn't slow. But she's trying. Good faith effort. MS. SORRELS: I am so sorry. MR. KAUFMAN: I think that this needs to be split into two different things. I think the first more important part of this is to abate, however you do it, the instances where somebody can be electrocuted. The conduit that's PVC now that should be electrical, the burying at 18 inches, the changing of the plywood, a lot of those things I'm sure can be done expeditiously, but I don't think you need to put those two in the same time frame. We need to do something immediately for the wires that you showed in the pictures that were exposed, for the meter that was missing or the panel where you could just touch it and be electrocuted. Now, how we do that, I don't know if we can get somebody out of there from the building department to take a look and see what Page 67 1611 95 Jury 22, 2010 needs to be done immediately and separate those from the replace the plywood, bury the cable, et cetera, et cetera. I'd like the board's thought on that approach. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I have a suggestion. How about language to the effect: Construct and implement physical barriers to restrict access to open electrical dangers, something along that line. Not just a warning sign. I think there needs to be some kind of barrier, something that someone would have to lift up or climb over to cross into around these areas. And I think that something simple. Any construction supply house would have any type of plastic fencing, you know, caution signs, those warning tapes, danger tapes, something along those that we use in construction all the time would be inexpensive and very quick to deploy. MR. ORTEGA: That may work for adults, but what about children? MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm afraid of is you put up a barricade, and let's say a ball -- let's say the barricade's, say, three feet around. If someone has to climb over to get a ball, they're going to climb over to get the ball and not heed the warning or the fence, and by jumping over may come in contact with a wire. So this is a really hard case to weigh, you know, people live there, but then, you know, there is definitely a health and safety issue. I think that the fines should be very high and then it should be a short period to get this done. I'm thinking somewhere around seven days they need to get a majority of the issues corrected. And if they're not done, what's the maximum fine that the board can -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Single offense is 500. MS. RAWSON: Five hundred. MR. LEFEBVRE: Five hundred. I think it absolutely should be 500. And there's a set fee, a one -time fee, right, also? MS. RAWSON: That might be for a repeat, though. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I don't think it's for a single. 16 11 B5 rl July 22, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Well then I think the fines should be very stiff, if it is not fixed within a very short period. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I know exactly what you're saying. You know, some kind of real encapsulating physical structure, like plywood with two -by -fours or something along those lines to really prevent anyone from getting access. But it's going to be difficult to do that in all of these areas. MR. LEFEBVRE: How many are we talking about? MS. SORRELS: Clarification, violations or how many FP &L meters? MR. LEFEBVRE: How many violations? How many are in a state of repair that need to be done right away, immediately? MS. SORRELS: That need to be done right away, it would be the three. It would be the two that have the energized parts exposed on that FP &L meter and the other one where he's holding up with the exposed wires. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a suggestion that we get an electrician out there within -- I'm sure an electrician who works on that every day can make those places safe. And we can surmise anything we want, but an electrician does this every day. They leave jobs that are not finished and they provide some safety on that. So I'd like to separate the three that you have identified as the most severe cases, and taking from Mr. Lefebvre's point as seven days to probably assign that seven days with the largest fine we can possibly come up with and that we ask that an electrician be brought on the property and make these places safe. MR. UESPERANCE: It does disturb me that it's been four months since the owner was noticed. MS. SORRELS: Can I make a suggestion, just kind of trying to understand where you guys are going with this. On the three that we have identified obviously that need to be addressed immediately, they would be three things that could be done without a permit by a 161i.1 R�j Yl� JulyZ2'2010 contractor. They can get covers for those two disconnects that are energized and cover them up. That would not require a permit to get a metal lid on top of those boxes. And then the third one with all the wires exposed and the conduit, and everything, just cut the power supply that's running to that, and that would abate those three immediate things. And then that would give them time to get the permits needed to make all the repairs necessary. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could you help us to put that into some sort of language so that we can identify those. If you have unit numbers, lot numbers, anything along those lines that would help us, so that -- MS. SORRELS: I do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Because, you know, I'd hate to get into a situation where, oh, well, I wasn't sure that that was part of the original and I didn't do that, and then a kid gets hurt. MR. LEFEBVRE: I absolutely agree. MR. ERICKSON: I would agree with that approach that she mentioned. That's what I thought too. I'm not an electrical contractor or anything, but I'm sure an electrician has a means of covering up any exposed wire with or without a permit. I would assume that if an electrician sees an exposed wire, they don't have to get a permit to remedy the immediate situation. MR. KAUFMAN: We're going to make a motion that said what she said. MS. RAWSON: She's going to have to say it again. MS. SORRELS: All right, just to show you the locations of the three things that I had pointed out, the FP &L meter that has the two energized disconnects are in between Lot 48 and 24. It's located right here. Those are the two that need the metal covers placed overtop of the disconnect -- energized disconnects. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just as a suggestion, maybe we can write on Page 70 16 i�l� 1R5 July 14, 01 exactly where they are. Can you write on this exhibit exactly where it is, and that way it's spelled out on this exhibit. And is there any way to put this in the order as an exhibit? MS. RAWSON: Yes. She can write on the exhibit and give me the exhibits, that would be very helpful. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And could you also refer to the photographs that you have printed, because they'll be part of the record. And they've numbered, correct? They have lot numbers on them or something? MS. SORRELS: Not all of them, no, they're in -- not in this case, they're not in lot numbers because there's not really lot numbers, they're just located sporadically around the park. CHAIRMAN KELLY: How about photos with electrical issue number one, two and three. MS. SORRELS: Yes. MS. RAWSON: I could attach that to the order. You might not want to record all that, though. Probably I could just describe it. MR. ERICKSON: That way the electrical person would have something to look at to make sure he's addressed the specific problems. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Exactly. MS. SORRELS: All right, I guess we're just going with the site plan indicating where they're located at. Again, between Lot 24, you know how hard it is to write -- thank you. These are the two covers that are needed. And then the other issue, the third issue was actually at the front of the park. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there a north -south on this? MS. SORRELS: This would be your south, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: I just want to make sure so someone can actually look at and know which way's north and -- MS. SORRELS: Correct. This would be the south side of the Page 71 1611 July 2P, 010 property at the entrance. Where you see the RV's, one, two and three, these are actually vacant. And right here along the fenceline is where that wiring is that needs to be disconnected from power source. MR. ORTEGA: I have a quick question. When you visited the site with Mr. Cortez, did you look at all the units or just these? MS. SORRELS: Specify as units, sir. Are you speaking of the mobile home units or each individual panel? MR. ORTEGA: Right, because if these are dilapidated the way they are, what's to say the other ones aren't and also pose a safety issue? MS. SORRELS: As within the units? They -- we have no idea what the electrical is inside the units. All -- MR. ORTEGA: No, no, outside. You have a meter for each unit, correct, for each trailer? MS. SORRELS: No, we do not have a meter for each unit, I think there've grouped. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And I believe what Herminio's asking is, did you walk the entire circle of the property and look at each one of those meters, boxes? MS. SORRELS: Correct, yes. We looked at all FP &L meters. MR. LEFEBVRE: On most of where the meters were, there's like three or four. MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: So if you extrapolate, if there's three or four per -- if there's 60 mobile homes, there's probably about 15 of these posts with the motors, correct? MS. SORRELS: There's about, we'll say approximately six or seven that has four to five meters. I know that two of the two center -- the two FP &L mounts that are in the center of the park, that goes down the center right here, they're double - sided. So there's actually eight to 10 meters on those. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Page 72 1611 85 1 July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Corporal Nelson, did you want to comment? MR. NELSON: Actually, there's one other open wire. The ones that are, when you come in, immediately to the left. ***They lie along the fence. MS. SORRELS: But they're not, the wires aren't exposed, it's just above ground. You know what I'm saying? The wire's just above ground. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Corporal, could you come to the mike, please. MR. NELSON: I'm sorry, I apologize for interrupting. When you first enter the mobile home park on the left, there's also a power box that's on the ground. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that the one you were holding up with your foot? MR. NELSON: I believe that one's the one she's got just the photo of laying on the ground with conduit coming down and out. MS. SORRELS: This is the first FP &L meter that we had showed, where he's holding it up. MR. NELSON: That one right there. MS. SORRELS: That would be the picture. The wiring does have its protective coating on it. You know what, it is exposed. So if -- if you wanted to include that, we could indicate that the fourth location that the power supply be cut off to. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So that would be part one of your motion, which was seven days and $500 per day. And then part two would be the general electrical condition of everything else that was cited in the case. And what were your time frames on that? MR. KAUFMAN: I would guesstimate. I don't believe that you have to turn the power off to the entire park. So I don't believe -- they're individual meters. I would think 60 days should be sufficient Page 73 ib�11�5 July 22, zoio time. And it's in line with the others. And as long as we take care of the life and safety aspect immediately. And the 60 days would be followed by $200 a day fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so to recap part one of this, motion would then be to accept the county's recommendation with the addition of two parts. Part one would be the four areas of imminent danger. Those would be corrected within seven days or a $500 fine per day. Part two would be to abate the additional violations within 60 days or $200 per day would exist. MR. ORTEGA: Be careful with isolating just those four areas. I think that needs to be determined by the electrical contractor as to the life safety issue. There may be five, there might be six. There might be other -- there might be grounds missing that require some attention now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here's my issue with that, because I agree, I don't want anyone getting hurt. But if somebody took it upon themselves to decide this fifth item, number five was not discussed and the owner didn't know about it, and all of a sudden he's getting hit with $500 per day because he thought that he had 60 days to do that particular one, that might be a lot of -- it would, one, be confusing but, two, it could be unjust. MR. KAUFMAN: How about if we amend it to have them resolve those four issues and then walk the area as you did and see if there's anything that the electrician sees that is a safety -- that is glaring, pardon the pun, that would require immediate -- and we'll leave it to the licensed electrician to select. MR. ERICKSON: The concern that I would have with that is whether a licensed electrician is then put on the spot. He's going to look at it that way. And whether he's going to look at it and say, well, boy, now I've got to -- now everybody is going to come after me if I don't clarify everything, so if anything has the least bit of concern to Page 74 16 I7 1 B5 July 22, 2010 him it's going to be added to the list. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Director Flagg? MS. FLAGG: Let me just offer that as the part of licensing an electrician, he has an obligation to review. So he will immediately be required to correct these four things. But he's also going to be required to review the site. Because that's his purpose of licensure. So if there is a life safety, he'll correct it. The only difference will be that the fines won't apply as you've outlined. MR. KAUFMAN: Now, as far as the days are concerned, you always thought the next day. And I understand that finding a licensed electrician to get out there immediately may not be the easiest thing to do. That's why we're allowing seven days to do that. Should you have a problem with that, I would ask up to get back with code enforcement -- MR. ERICKSON: We will. MR. KAUFMAN: -- and let us know what's going on. MS. FLAGG: I will tell you based on the job market, there will probably be folks standing in line for this job. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jean, do you have everything pretty clear for that motion? MS. RAWSON: Yes, I think so. The four areas of imminent danger within seven days or $500. And I think I have them kind of described here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So we do have a motion now that it's clear. Is it seconded? MR. ORTEGA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Herminio. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 75 161.1 65 '+ July 22, 2010 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is the respondent waiving notice? (Discussion was held off the record.) MR. ERICKSON: The concern I just had is we're going to need to review that order. I'm concerned that the electrical contractor is going to need to review the order to make sure he's got everything included in the order. So I was just checking with Ms. Rawson to see how long it will take to get the order. And I suggested she when she even gets the proposed order, she can e -mail that or fax that to me so that I can get it to the contractor. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I would really prefer also to have county work on separating out those images right now so that we can maybe even get a waive of service and set a date right now as to when those seven days are so everyone can agree on it here, we don't have to wait for orders to be written. MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, Ms. Waldron has identified on the site plan specifically relating to your order for the part one, and we can make a copy of the site plan and give it to you today. MR. ERICKSON: That would be good. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Thank you. And then also I want to add two more things real quick, Gerald. One is, as we go through these cases you'll hear this operational cost to be paid within 30 days. That is something that's assessed to the county, we can't waive those fees. We have nothing to do with them. Page 76 161 195 July 22, 2010 That's just prosecution amounts to pay the investigators to do this. I can tell you in the past we've been very reluctant to grant any extensions or waivers if that's not paid within 30 days. So if you can relay that to Mr. McKay. And then -- I'm sorry, go ahead, Gerald. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess would it be possible to have code enforcement and maybe the building department on site when an electrician is there? MS. SORRELS: Arrangements can be made. If they communicate with me who they've hired and they put us in contact and we can set a scheduled date, I'm very flexible with my schedule. It's just the matter of the inspector. But if a date can be given to us, I'm sure that our building department would be more than happy to cooperate with -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Because that may be a way of streamlining and saying this needs to be done and this is what needs to be done here, and pointing out the areas, so that way there's no miscommunication. I don't know if that has to be in the order or -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: You know, it is in the order to notify code enforcement. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, when it's corrected, but -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: When it's corrected. So to have them on site while it's being done would be even better. MR. ERICKSON: I don't know if we'd want to put it in the order, though, because if there was a conflict, it might delay the correction. I will certainly tell them, to suggest to them to contact code enforcement. But I would hate to have it delayed because they're waiting to meet up with code enforcement. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, just as a suggestion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. Page 77 164 195 July 22, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: As long as it's duly noted. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And I just remembered the second thing I wanted to tell you, to Mr. McKay, the urgency of that last case. MR. ERICKSON: Oh, I understand. I'll be calling him immediately on that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Okay, this will be case number eight now, if you want to read it in, Jen. MS. WALDRON: We're going to take cases eight and nine together at the same time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. WALDRON: So I'll read the statement of violation for each case, and then -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: No problem. I'll just need two separate votes at the end. MS. WALDRON: Yes. Okay, the first is case CEPM20100003098. Violation of ordinance Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article 6, Section 22- 231.12.N, Section 22- 231.12.M, Section 22- 231.12.B, Section 22- 231.16, Section 22- 231.12.C, Section 22- 242.B, Section 22- 231.12.I and Section 22- 241.1.E. Description of violation: Multiple lots in Palm Lake have several property maintenance violations to include but not limited to accessory structures, carports and sheds not maintained in good repair and sound structural condition, exterior surfaces of dwelling units haven't any protective coating. Many additions built below flood elevation are being utilized as habitable space. Roofs and defects which admit rain. Windows boarded on vacant dwelling units without a current boarding certificate. Windows and exterior doors boarded on occupied dwelling units, which could possibly affect the means of ingress and egress. Warehouse on property has broken windows. Location/address where violation exists: 3131 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio 061842240009. Page 78 1611 �r� July 2 '2 10 Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Palm Lake LLC, 1000 Jorie Boulevard, Suite 44, Oak Brook, Illinois 60523. Registered agent, Gregory L. Urbancic, 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, Florida 34103. Date violation first observed: March 9th, 2010. Date owner /person in charge given Notice of Violation: March 12th9 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 12th, 2010. Date of reinspection: April 16th, 2010. Results of reinspection: The violations remain. For next case, Case No. CESD20100004059, violation of ordinance Florida Building Code, 2007 Edition, Chapter One, Permits, Section 105. 1. Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06.(B)(1)(E)(i), Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article 2, Section 22 to 26B, 104.1.3.5. Description of violation: Property has several unpermitted structures, additions and /or alterations consisting of but not limited to sheds, carports, screened enclosures converted into living space, additional rooms, installation/alterations made to electrical wiring and installation/alterations made to plumbing work. Location/address where violations exists: 3131 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112. Folio 61842240009. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Palm Lake LLC, 1000 Jorie Boulevard, Suite 44, Oak Brook, Illinois 60523. Registered agent Gregory L. Urbancic, 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, Florida, 34103. Date violation first observed: March 9th, 2010. Date owner /person in charge given Notice of Violation: April 2nd, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 29th, 2010. Date of reinspection: June 16th, 2010. Page 79 16I B 5 July 22, 2010 Results of reinspection: Violation remains. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. SORRELS: This will be in reference to two different cases. The first case is CEPM20100003098 pertaining to the violations of several property maintenance violations on multiple mobile homes throughout park. The other case is CESD20100004059 pertaining to the violations of unpermitted structures, additions and alterations throughout the park. I just wanted to make -- all the site visits are the same. I just wanted to make note that personal service on the case ending in 3098 was on March 12th, 2010 and the case ending in 4059, personal service was April 2nd, 2010. I'm combining these cases together. As you review the pictures you're going to see that a lot of the property maintenance issues and the permitting issues go hand -in -hand. I want to just set forth for you kind of a history of this property. You had seen the most current -- I'm talking too fast, I'm sorry -- the most current 2010 aerial. I wanted to put -- the next one up will be a 1975 aerial from the Property Appraiser's website indicating that the park -- yes, sir? CHAIRMAN KELLY: We just have to make a motion to accept it. Go ahead. MS. SORRELS: It's an aerial of the park, the property in 1975. I have another aerial from the Naples City website which is provided by The Conservancy, an aerial of 1973 and an aerial of 1953. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And do you have photographs as well or is this going to be a separate issue? MS. SORRELS: They'll be separate. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so this Exhibit A, the aerials -- MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibit. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. 16 5 July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ayes have it. MS. SORRELS: This is the property in 1975, clearly showing that it was there and in existence with probably just the proper amount of lots. MR. KAUFMAN: Clearly it's not, but it's there. MS. SORRELS: The next aerial is going to be from the Naples City's website, and the pictures are from The Conservancy. And I apologize, it wouldn't print any bigger for me. This is 1973. And again, if you look there, you'll see the intersection of Airport and Tamiami Trail East, and the park is located in the same area. The last aerial is 1953, and showing that it was not in existence in 1953. I spoke with Kim Bochek at the Property Appraiser's, and she did some research for me, and she did indicate that the Property Appraiser's did not pick up improvements up on this property until 1961. So the question remains is permits. We have several structures that clearly do not meet Florida Building Code, it would not be permitted. So I did research. I searched all of our softwares: CD Page 81 16I +1 `B5 July 22, 20 10 Plus, I researched WHIPS, I also researched microfilm. Was not able to locate permits for carports, additions and sheds and things of that nature. The only thing that was most recent was in the late Nineties several permits were issued for re- roofings. Since the Property Appraisers gave me a year of the early -- the property clearly was improved in 1961, according to the Property Appraisers. Real quick, I did research from the zoning codes from '61, '651 '68 and '75 to show that setbacks or side yard requirements would be required, therefore not allowing some of these structures to be even permitted. Would you guys like to review them? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just that if they're consistent. MS. SORRELS: They are consistent, yes, sir. Would you like me just to breeze through them real quick? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just the setback amounts, like the footage, if you will. Is that where you're going with this, that some of these -- MS. SORRELS: Correct, correct. In 1961 they -- I just need to define a side yard so you would understand where I'm getting my information. A side yard is an open unoccupied space on the same lot with a building between the building and the sideline of the lot extending through from the front building line to the rear yard. So that would be considered a side yard. In 1961 R -4 was the zoning for mobile homes. And it indicates that a minimum lot width, that building line shall be 40 feet with front yard of 25 feet, a minimum side yard of seven and a half feet. With a definition of a side yard, it has to be an open unoccupied space. So a structure would not be permitted to be built within that seven and a half feet. That would be consistent also with the 1965. The definition of a side yard remains the same. And the minimum side yard requirement 161;jrzz�e�o I is seven and a half feet as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I have a question. MS. SORRELS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So that would mean you couldn't build a structure; in other words, a concrete pad would not be allowed. But what about mobile homes, how do they fit into this? MS. SORRELS: When you look at the pictures, the mobile homes aren't in question, what's in question is all the additions that have been made to them. And we have measurements showing some of them as close as five feet between the structures. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thanks. MS. SORRELS: 1968, they zoned this -- or this particular use is zoned a mobile home and travel trailer park. And they actually start providing more setbacks in these -- this ordinance. The setbacks for that zoning is eight feet between side -- side yard to structure, eight feet, and then a minimum setback from building or structures of 10 feet. So between -- so if you have the two lots side by side, they would have to have at least 16 feet between structures, or if the building was on the same property, like a shed and a mobile home, there would have to be 10 feet between structures. MR. KAUFMAN: So it's gone from 14 feet to 16 feet. MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Can you tell me how many of these units were built during that time frame or the pads set up for the trailers? Were they all done at once or -- MS. SORRELS: From what I can see on the Property Appraiser's card, there was a few improvements made in 1961, maybe two or three, maybe -- well, I'll say about four or five, what I can see on here, maybe mobile homes were put in place. That was in 1961. But most of the property card shows everything happening in the mid - Seventies. Page 83 16 f u In 19 -- excuse me, Ordinance 74 -42, it's -- now they've zoned what they title as a mobile home rental park. And the setbacks for a mobile home rental park in 1974 would be five feet from the side. So it would be a total of 10 feet between structures on different lots and 10 feet between structures. MR. ORTEGA: I have a question, if I may. MS. SORRELS: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: When you speak of structures, you're talking about the mobile home? MS. SORRELS: I'm speaking of the additions to the mobile homes. We're not questioning the mobile homes, we're questioning the additions. Some of them are additions built, like living space additions, others are porches, others are carports, some of them have a combination of both. MR. KAUFMAN: So you're saying that we went from 14 feet to 16 feet and then we went to 10 feet. MS. SORRELS: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. SORRELS: All right, with that being said, and understanding my whole process of the permitting and showing that a lot of these structures do not meet the codes, even back in the early Sixties through the mid - Seventies, I'll go through the pictures and I'll point out the unpermitted structures. I have over 200 pictures. Obviously we're not going to see that many. But I'm going to try to hit on the most important properties -- or lots, I should say. And I'll point out as we go along and go from there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I've got a question procedurally. So that the respondent understands exactly what's required, how do we admit this into evidence, which will then become part of the order? If she's not going to show all 200, if we're not going to see all of the violations, how do we include them if they're -- 16 B5 July 22, 2010 MS. RAWSON: You're going to have to do it in a sort of general overall term. And she's going to have to describe them for me so I can describe them as best I can. And I'm going to e -mail all these orders to Mr. Erickson before they go out in the regular mail. MS. SORRELS: But I understand what you're saying, if we're only touching on a few lots, how do we get the whole spectrum. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Maybe a suggestion would be to have the building department identify those when it comes time to correct them. We can just say that all violations of the building code would be addressed. I don't think -- you know, you and I, we're not qualified to make that distinction anyway, so let's have the building department come up with a master list. MR. KAUFMAN: Will the respondent stipulate that he has seen all those pictures and -- without going through all 200 pictures? MR. ERICKSON: This is an issue -- this is kind of new to me, this particular aspect of it. I've dealt with it in other cases, other matters, but this is one that does bring significant concern to me, because I am familiar with these mobile home parks and I understand what happens. The people that own the mobile homes add on to it and most of the parks say you're supposed to get at permit, some people do it without permits. And obviously that's I think what we're going to have here. And half the people that bought these things don't know where, when they came from, and who -- I assume they're owned by the people who own the mobile homes again. And I think my concern is that each one is basically a separate issue. And if we've got 200 pictures of 200 violations or whether it's 100 violations, I don't think I'd be in a position and I don't know if we're in a position to acknowledge that each of these are violations. There could be reasons that one is or one isn't a screen porch as opposed to a shed, something like that. So this is one, and this is one where I see very thorny issues as far as the park residents, you know. It's fine for the owner to come in 1611 85 July 22, 2010 and say we've got to rip out all these things, and all of a sudden everybody loses their porch or their various parts. And I can see a significant problem here that, unlike the other ones that are easily addressed and clear -- you know, this is one that I can see is going to require more time to resolve with everybody involved. Because this could be -- I mean, I don't even know exactly what structures we're talking about. I'm assuming they're all basically the mobile homes, each individual mobile homes. But this is one where I see the general public of the people, the residents of the park being very directly affected by it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I don't foresee there being an issue if there was additions put on for like a carport or a screened -in enclosure, even a shed in the back to store items. The issue that our board has is if inhabited structures were added on without proper permits. Because then they didn't get the electrical inspections or the plumbing inspections that could cause a health issue. So we'll have to go through and see, you know, where it relates. But I don't foresee an issue granting extension of times, you know, or being lenient on the time frame for the issues that aren't health related. Let's go ahead and look. We're going to need a motion to see these pictures, because this will be Exhibit B. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. LAVINSKI: Second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second by Mr. Lavinsky. He beat you to it. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. 1611., �510 Juy2 MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And you can pick and choose, if you want. If you have multiple structures that are similar, however you want to do it. MS. SORRELS: Okay. Yeah, I'm going to try to pick and choose and make this a little bit shorter. The first lot you're going to be looking at is lot nine. Again, we're not questioning the mobile homes but we are questioning -- or we are indicating that the additions are not permitted. What you're looking as here is an addition, a doorway obviously here at the top. But the walls don't even go all the way up. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let me -- if you put that back, I just want to show Mr. Erickson what we're looking at. So this would be great example of like a screened -in porch. You know, the board might grant time to get that whole thing sorted out and pull a demolition permit and have it removed. But if someone was living inside there, that was a bedroom, that would be a different situation, we'd be concerned about that. Okay, thanks. MS. SORRELS: With that being said, this is showing down the side where further down the wall it does go all the way up to the ceiling and go all the way back. This is the rear of the structure. The permit is one of the things we're addressing. But also wanted to point out on a property maintenance point of view that the wood is not -- the paint's chipping, it needs to have a protective covering on the wood. Again, this is the rear now looking down. Page 87 1611 July 22, 2010 The next one is Lot 17. This is the one I believe -- I'm not sure if Mike Nelson, Corporal Nelson had spoken of the kitchen, but Lot 17 has an addition on it as well. This is the front view, just kind of showing some of the wood being exposed to the weather. This is looking down the side. It's a screened enclosure. You can see how it's kind of built. The screening is attached to the two -by- fours. This little room that you see back here is actually their kitchen. They have taken their kitchen out of their mobile home and it's now in this room right here. Lot 23. Here's the front view of Lot 23, the addition and the carport. A shed that is underneath the carport. And it clearly does not meet the separations of the structures. Inside of the carport -- or excuse me, inside the shed we have electrical and plumbing, obviously not to code, showing that would not -- had been permitted. This is just the view underneath the mobile home. This is more of a property maintenance issue. The mobile home flooring has actually deteriorated, from what we can see outside, and the actual insulation is now falling down. Yes, sir? CHAIRMAN KELLY: When you're going through, if you see a property maintenance issue only, can you tag that as maintenance only? If it's a structural issue where it's an unpermitted structure or it doesn't meet setbacks and we couldn't even get a permit for it, could you vocalize that as well? MS. SORRELS: Sure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: What I don't want you to, you know, get into is starting to talk about maintenance on a structure that's not even supposed to be there in the first place. MS. SORRELS: Okay. 1611 B5 0 July aa, zoio CHAIRMAN KELLY: So that we start getting confused. MR. ORTEGA: Or if in your opinion any of these poses a life safety hazard. MS. SORRELS: Okay, right. We're still on Lot 23. This is inside the shed that you had seen the electrical work. This is a -- the toilet that is in there that is connected to plumbing. Lot 23 appears to be vacant. One of the windows had been -- or there was an AC unit here, so when that was removed I could see inside. This would be part of the unpermitted enclosure. Lot 27, this will be a property maintenance issue on one particular area. This is the front view. If you look down the side, which would be the right -hand side, you'll see that the mobile home is actually bowing out. The framing underneath has actually broken, and we're going to show a picture of where they've tried to brace the mobile home. I would say that this might be a definite health and safety, being that it is already starting to collapse. Here you can see where the insulation and everything has dropped down. If you look underneath here, there's a piece of plywood that has -- a brand new piece of -- or two -by -four that's been put in place to help anchor or support the caving floor. MR. KAUFMAN: This is occupied? MS. SORRELS: Yes, this one is occupied. They're actually stealing electric, which I'm going to show you here in a second. Just again just showing the insulation and the debris. If you look here, there's an extension cord that's running across the lot, running into the neighbor's lot, which is vacant. We tried to take a picture of the two -by -four put in place to support the broken flooring. So this is the two -by -four showing up underneath the mobile home. I know it's kind of discombobulated; it wasn't a very easy picture to take. All right, we'll go into Lot 27. Here is the front view of Lot 27. Mm 1611 g5 "a July 22, 2010 This is the side view of Lot 27. The addition would be not permitted, so we'll just leave it at that. There's property maintenance issues, but you told me to keep it straightened, so we'll just say not permitted. I'm sorry, I knew I had misplaced a picture. This is kind of out of order. This is Lot 25, which is next to the lot that's stealing the electricity. It went across the lot, and here's the extension cord going into the vacant mobile home and plugged in. My apologies. This is between Lot 33 and 31. Clearly the carports overhang each other, not meeting the separations that would be required. On Lot 3 5 -- I'm just going to give you the front view of Lot 3 5. And here is where we had measured between the structures. This is Lot 35 on this side, and this is Lot 33. The tape measure is a little upside down, but it's clearly indicating there's only eight feet between the structures. On Lot 54 -- excuse me, 56. Lot 56, I just want to show these to you. Lot 56 has an addition on it. The addition is not permitted, but I wanted to point out the roof that is covered and caving in. MR. LAVINSKI: Is that roof to code. MS. SORRELS: No. MR. KAUFMAN: You would have to ask Ken on that. MS. SORRELS: If you give me one second, gentlemen, there's two properties I want to show you, and then I'll cut it short, unless there's more pictures you'd like to review. Lot 12 is a vacant lot. And this is definitely a health and safety, because the building is completely exposed, the windows are broken out, and again, we have children that run around in this park. So Lot 12, here's the front view. Down the right side is the carport. The carport has been ripped off, probably throughout a storm. Of course it's dilapidated and falling down on the roof line. The windows have all been broken out in the mobile home. This would be strictly a property maintenance issue on this one. Page 90 16-111B5 July 22, 2010 The door along the side here is boarded up. I'm not sure, I couldn't really see if it was the glass was broken or they were just trying to secure the door from being opened. The front here, the windows are broken out. On the right hand -- the left -hand side of the mobile home is an addition. The glass windows are all broke out. MR. KAUFMAN: The addition wasn't permitted? MS. SORRELS: That one I'm going to -- it appears to meet setbacks and it also is above FEMA flood level. So I would not actually say it would be permitted or not permitted. I'm more or less going with the property maintenance on this one. MR. ORTEGA: How was it determined that it's above FEMA flood level? MS. SORRELS: This is the addition. And see the concrete elevation and the flooring right here, where they actually step up into the room? It's the same level as the mobile home. Mobile homes are required to be set at certain height for FEMA flood. MR. ORTEGA: Most likely they are all below the floodplain, but -- MS. SORRELS: Pardon? MR. ORTEGA: Most likely they are all below the floodplain. MS. SORRELS: Okay. I'm just going by my experience in the field, sir. This is the addition on the same mobile home with the soffits and everything falling out. Lot 67 we wanted to definitely bring to your attention. Lot 67 has a mobile home with an addition. Right here is the addition. The mobile home has a family living it. This addition, which I'm going to show you a different view of, has a family living in it with a makeshift kitchen and a bedroom all in the same room. And then the shed back here you're going to see pictures of also has somebody living in it. This is at the back of the carport. This is the shed and the Page 91 161�� B5 July 22, 2010 construction of the shed that somebody was living in. Here's the door to the shed as you come through the carport. You pass that front wall and you walk to the door. This is the door to the addition to the mobile home. When you open this door, you look in, you see a bed. And up against this wall is a little makeshift kitchen that a family is using to live in. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you just go back to the -- not that picture, the one before that, please? MS. SORRELS: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: If you look in -- well, you look to the right, you can see electrical boxes. I guess we're not looking at the electrical boxes in this case. But then right where the post is you can see another series of electrical boxes, correct? MS. SORRELS: Yes, that is correct. And if we went back to the FP &L -- or the meter pictures, you would see this exact meter is actually all barricaded in with this construction material is where the hot water was is sitting, one of the litter pictures. This is the entrance to the -- this is the door to the entrance of the main mobile home. You actually have to walk into the carport past the addition. And in between the addition and the shed is this door, and that's how they access their home and the mobile home. Yeah, and they all -- from our understanding, communication was a little difficult, but from our understanding all three families was using the one bathroom inside the main unit. MR. ORTEGA: Is this mobile park on sewer or septic? MS. SORRELS: It's county, it's sewer. The last lot I want to show you is Lot 24. This was a big concern. The fire department, they weren't out here addressing fire violations, fire codes with us, but they were just as a general professional firefighter went out there with us to kind of give us some indications of concerns they might have. I do want to say that this mobile home now is vacant. I'm sorry. Page 92 li 1.1 B 5 July 22, 2010 This mobile home is now vacant, but there was a family with two small children living in this home. Lot 24, this is the front part of the mobile home. On the mobile home, a property maintenance issue would be that this is separated, allowing moisture and water to enter into the insulation in the inside of the mobile home. The windows also being busted out along the side here, down the side. This is in the rear of the addition that's on the left -hand side. This is electrical wiring, piping, conduit coming out. And it stops right here. And then this exposed wire actually runs down the whole back side of the mobile home into the ground. Here was a concern of the fire department's. This addition that was on the left -hand side of the mobile home, this is actually the back view of it. They have taken a Florida -type screened room and they've actually mounted metal studs and they've insulated it and hung drywall, turning it into living space. The firefighter's concern is that a mobile home is already very insulated, so the fire heats quickly and it goes up quickly in flames. They basically blocked off all their egress and ingress, and, you know, of course adding insulation and stuff, causing it to, you know, burn quicker. This is just a side view of the windows. The windows were left in place, so you can actually see here's the metal studs and all the insulation. One of the windows was broken out, so I was able to take a view of a picture of the inside of the addition. That was looking at what the inside of the addition looked like. Here's electrical and stuff obviously hanging out of the walls. And a closer up of the electrical also, the mildew and stuff along the drywall. Again I have, you know, tons of lots in here that you could see pictures of, but I tried to get the most important ones for you. Page 93 1611 B5 July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, thank you. Does anybody from the board have questions for Azure? MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a few questions. First of all, did you ascertain if there was ever a site development plan on this property? MS. SORRELS: No, I could not locate a site development plan. The closest thing I found was a'98 permit of that site plan. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are there individual lots that are -- are there individual lots here, or is it just one piece, one property? MS. SORRELS: This is all one piece of property. MR. LEFEBVRE: So when you talk about lot lines, how do you know where a lot line is if there's no separate lots, per se? Like in a development you'll see individual lots when you have an aerial. So how can you distinguish if there's 10 feet, 15 feet, 16 feet, whatever numbers we're throwing out? MS. SORRELS: In the zoning regulations through the Sixties and Seventies, it gives an area regulation, so a minimum lot size shall be 4,000 square feet. Now, I can't testify to how that would work. I don't know, you know, how they go through and draw those lines, but clearly there's imaginary lines put there saying okay, this is your lot and this is your lot. How it actually breaks down, I don't know. All I can tell you is that there were requirements for these, the size that their lots were supposed to be. MR. LEFEBVRE: How many acres is this property? MR. ORTEGA: Most likely back then there were no SDP's, they basically had a site plan is what they went by. So at some point there must have been one in existence. MS. SORRELS: It's 4.3 acres. MR. LEFEBVRE: 4.3 acres? MS. SORRELS: Correct. And to confirm, yes, we couldn't find anything recorded. And no Page 94 161a B5 July 22, 2010 subdivision, no plats, no nothing recorded of any kind. MR. LEFEBVRE: How many units is this zoned for again? You said R -4? MS. SORRELS: Well, that's the zoning that was in the 1960's, they called it R -4. Like today we have RSF -1, you know, residential single- family. Then they called it R -4, and that's what they used for mobile homes. MR. LEFEBVRE: So what's the maximum amount of units that would be allowed on this property under the current zoning? MS. SORRELS: Can you give me one second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Sure. MR. ORTEGA: Can you really apply current zoning to something that was -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Going back when this was developed. MS. SORRELS: Right, I wasn't going to look for current zoning because we do have clear indication that it was established, definitely improvements in the early Sixties, but most of it throughout the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: So the Land Development Code, LDC, in the Sixties when this was developed, if you can -- I mean, was this develop -- what I'm trying to get at, I know we're probably not looking at it as a zoning case, but I mean, these may not even be -- MR. ORTEGA: Allowed. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- allowed, period. But I have a problem with not knowing. I know the lots have to be 4,000 square feet. And if that's the case, you have to have 40 feet frontage, so it would be a 40 by 100 -foot lot. But to try to find a violation based on some imaginary line, that's kind of hard. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I have a question, actually for you, Gerald. If this is all one lot, the four acres, four plus acres, how do you divide the individual sections for each home site? Is that what the code is referring to, or is it referring to the entire parcel as the lot? Page 95 1b 11 B 5 July 22, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, that's what I'm kind of -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: If that's the case, then it just reverts back to every structure has to be a minimum of 10 feet from another, which is fairly consist to the property lines anyway. So if we use that 10 foot, maybe that will suffice. MS. SORRELS: Just to kind of clarify, actually it was in what I had read earlier, area regulations. It says a minimum lot width at building line shall be 40 feet with front yard of 25 feet. Now, to me that doesn't make sense, because being on -site I would, you know, say there's definitely not 25 feet in the front. But again, I'm not a zoning expert, I don't do any kind of zoning, so I can only tell you what I have in writing. MR. KAUFMAN: I don't think that's going to be the problem with this particular case. MS. SORRELS: It's all -- the way code enforcement looks at it is it's one piece of property. I understand there's different lots and they're owned -- the mobile homes are owned by different people. And I definitely understand the legalities in it, but it's all -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just, when Cherie' sighs, I feel so bad. MS. SORRELS: I already apologized to her. I feel so bad. I'm so sorry. MR. LEFEBVRE: I just did some quick math, and if you have 60 units and each unit has to have -- or each lot has to have a 40 by -- 4,000 square feet, so it would be 40 by 100. 4,000 square feet times 60, which is how many mobile homes we have, you would need 240,000 square feet. If you divide that by 43,560, which is an acre, that's more than 4.3. MR. KAUFMAN: That's without any roads. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's right, that's just without any roads. So, I mean, I'm almost wondering why this isn't a zoning case. MS. SORRELS: I'm sorry. MR. ORTEGA: Did you say this was an R -4. 0_= 16 It, B 5 July 22, 2010 MS. SORRELS: Through the Sixties and Seventies it was zoned MR. ORTEGA: Isn't that four units per acre. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's what I'm trying to find -- I didn't want to answer -- MR. ORTEGA: I know where you're going with this -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I didn't want to answer the question for her. MS. SORRELS: Gentlemen, gentlemen, I don't know when this was done, but on the property card there is a clear indication that says acreage reduced to equalize. I don't have a date of when that was written, but at one point in time the Property Appraisers noted that the acreage had been reduced to equalize. MR. KAUFMAN: So they probably grandfathered it. MS. SORRELS: Possibly. MR. LEFEBVRE: What do you mean by equalize? I'm not sure what that term means. MS. SORRELS: I don't know. I should have brought someone from the Property Appraisers with me -- MR. ORTEGA: Even area for each individual unit or space? MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't know what that means. MS. SORRELS: Well, it says acreage, so I'm assuming the total acreage of the property. I mean, we just discussed it was 4.38 acres. According to what I was reading -- and again, I'm not a zoning expert, but what I was reading, it says a minimum of 10 acres was required. So maybe they had the 10 acres and at one point, and somewhere for some reason -- and again, this is all speculation, I'm not -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. We're not hearing a zoning case, per se, but I'm just trying to figure out the spacing between the units and individual lots. You're talking about -- there's not an individual lot, per se. MS. SORRELS: Correct. I mean, there's a site plan showing lots of the mobile homes, like mobile home two is, you know, they're just Page 97 1611-195 � July 22, 2010 saying that's Lot 2. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, here's another question. What are they leasing? If there's not individual lots, what are they leasing? I mean, there's no specifics on what they're leasing, so -- MR. ORTEGA: Space? It's not a lot. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's not a defined space. I mean, this -- I don't know, for me this case is just -- I've been on the board for eight years, this is probably one of the worst cases I've seen. There's just a multitude of things here. MR. ERICKSON: This, I think, is very clear. And that's why especially these two particular cases we're addressing right now, we've got a situation here that affects everybody living in the mobile home park. As you say, based upon the zoning, based upon the setbacks, this whole park could very well be able for the -- one authority or another to shut it down. The question is in part is that what we do or how do we handle the people that are there? I mean, it's very clear there's going to be issues as to whether it even can be remedied, some of these situations that we brought up. MR. KAUFMAN: I've been around for a while. This is the biggest blight I've seen. I don't know what the remedy other than a bulldozer to flatten the whole property and start from square one. There are just so many violations here. There isn't a picture that you haven't put up that somebody can't find something. It's probably not right for the people who are living there and it's certainly not right for the other citizens of Collier. I couldn't even dream of what could be done to remediate the situation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, to act as Chair for a little while, and to try to mediate this whole debacle, who would be the agency that would determine which of these individual homes have problems and which ones don't, which ones could be permitted, which ones can't, you know, meet setback, don't meet setback, whatever? Who 16.,1 1B5 July 22, 2010 would handle that? MS. SORRELS: You're looking at her. I'm the one that enforces those ordinances. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So if, let's say, for instance the respondent came to you and said here's a mobile home, what do you want me to do with this carport that's been built onto it, you would go through and pinpoint, all right, that one has to be removed or permitted? MS. SORRELS: Correct. I would have to -- I would say that it's a violation. Unless you can provide me and show proof of a permit from the Sixties or Seventies clearly saying that it was permitted, it would either have to be permitted or removed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I almost wanted to go to a rhetorical 101 on code enforcement, just to bring us all back to what we really need to decide here. And I don't want to see the board get off on tangents and run down this road of, you know, dictating what that particular unit must do or this one must do. I think the charging documents are very clear as to what the violations are. It's not really the board's position to decide how they're rectified, just as long as those violations are abated within whatever time frame we decide. So sticking with that, can we discuss amongst the board time frames to just simply get these unpermitted structures either permitted or demo'd and the property maintenance issues corrected. MR. KAUFMAN: Shouldn't we find them in violation first? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, there you go. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion we find them in violation on both of those. If you want to vote separately -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: We need to vote separately, so let's take property maintenance issue ending in 3098. MR. KAUFMAN: Make the motion that they're in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. Page 99 1611 A July 2p, 510 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, that's that one. And then the other would be unpermitted structures, and that's ending in 4059. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll make a motion they're in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR.ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the ayes have it. Okay, now, do you have a recommendation for both of these? MS. SORRELS: Yes. And I am so going to try and go really Page 100 16th B5 4 iy az, Zoio slow. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Which one is this? MS. SORRELS: This would be the property maintenance ending in 3098. County recommends Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtain all required Collier County building permits, inspections, Certificate of Completions and repair all accessory structures, returning them to sound structural condition and in good repair. Repair all exterior walls from holes, breaks, or loose rotting material, returning them to a weatherproof and watertight condition. Provide all exterior surfaces other than decay - resistent woods with protective treatment by painting or other protective covering to protect exterior surface from the elements. Repair all roofs that have defects, returning the roofs to a safe condition which is watertight and weatherproof, or obtain a demolition permit and demolish all said structures which are in violation within "X" number of days of this hearing or an "X" amount fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. All permitted space below flood level must be returned to a storage or utilitarian space and must cease using these spaces as habitable, or obtain demolition permit for the removal of any unpermitted work below flood level within an "X" number of days of this hearing or an "X" amount fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Must remove any and all non - approved boarding or securing materials and methods on building openings and/or must apply for and obtain an improved boarding certificate for any vacant unsecured structure from the Code Enforcement Department to include an improved property maintenance plan within "X" number of days of Page 101 161�1 B5 July 22, 2010 this hearing or an "X" amount fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct final inspection to confirm abatement. If the abatement fails to -- 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. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. MR. UESPERANCE: Before we go any further. I just want to inquire as to the county staffs thought or maybe to our attorney's opinion as to whether or not there might be any criminal charges against the owner of this property for these conditions. Possible. MS. RAWSON: Well, the Sheriff probably can answer the question better than I could. But whether that is or isn't is not the purview of this board. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Correct. MS. RAWSON: All you have to do is say there's been a violation and this is how you should correct it. She's given you a pretty specific way. It covers everything, you know, that you can correct it. If there are criminal violations, I mean, that's aside and apart from what you're doing. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you very much. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question for Jean as well. I'm a little uncomfortable with one person owns the property, somebody else has a unit on the property where they put an addition on. We are saying to the property owner you have to do A, B, C when Page 102 1611 95 July 22, 2010 it's not his property. I don't know how that fits in. I know that if you're in a condo and you do some construction work that's not part of what the condo association permits, that's a different story. This seems to be very difficult to pinpoint. MS. RAWSON: Well, yes and no. Because they did those wonderful rules and regulations and because I think that all of these properties that have these problems violate those rules and regulations, we go back to the property owner who's responsible for all this and then he's going to say to the tenants, you know, this is what you have to do, because it violates the rules and regulations because you're not up to code. And if you don't do it, well, then you're going to have to leave. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. That makes it simple for me to understand. MR. ERICKSON: The only question I would put on that is those rules and regulations were established March of this year. I don't know if all those people signed those rules and regulations. And so whether some of those rules and regulations modify existing leases and are enforceable, I wouldn't know. But, I mean, it would be my expectation that one way or another everybody has to comply with code enforcement. But I agree with you, that is a key problem with respect to my client is the possibility that he gets substantial fines for repairs that he's not authorized to make. He certainly cannot just go onto someone's mobile home and start taking out their screen porch -- MR. KAUFMAN: So would you foresee this going -- I'm trying to -- foresee this going where you go back to your client and say you need to enforce the rules that you distributed and you need to give those people "X" amount of days to do it. And if you don't do it, something is going to happen. I don't know whether that should be part of our motion or not, to give them the time to enforce their rules to resolve the situation. Page 103 1611 95 July 22, 2010 MR. ERICKSON: That's why this aspect in particular I think, before -- I would like before the board rules, I would like these two issues perhaps to be continued so that we can look at it and find out what is a better way, an order that can be formulated that protects everybody's interest, including the county's interest, so that we can get this resolved. Because I'm concerned we may come up with an order today that may not even be enforceable one way or another and may not get the job completed the way people want to get it completed. I think we see that there's major issues that have to be addressed here. MS. RAWSON: And if he's going to have to evict these people, that's not going to happen within the time frame that you're going to give him to fix these violations, I'll bet. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, again, if -- we may have an order. If he doesn't comply within the time frames that we give him, he has the ability to come in front of us and explain why and ask for an extension of time. But I think with the -- from the pictures and everything, that we need as a board to have a strict timeline on when they have to be abated. However he abates these violations, it's not up to us to tell him how to run his business. He's run it the way so far that he needs to get corrected, the issues. So I think we just have to lay out what he needs to do and not tell him -- give him a strict time frame -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure? MS. SORRELS: I just kind of wanted to follow up with what Mr. Lefebvre was saying. There is definite health and safety welfare issues on some of these units. And in respect -- again, we've clearly stated that he owns the property. So who's going to be there to stop the mobile homeowner to put another tenant back into that mobile home into those conditions? So we have to -- I feel that we need to proceed forward. MR. ORTEGA: Did you not say there was a property manager? Page 104 161 July Zz, Zoio MS. SORRELS: There is a property manager, correct. MR. ORTEGA: And I find it hard to believe that as the owner of the property he's not aware of all this work being conducted, because it's extensive. MS. SORRELS: I would agree, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So what does the board think as far as time frames? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to give them a specified amount of time, and we'd need to see some progress during that period of time or come back and ask for an extension. What that time is, I think it's a significant amount. It's a serious violation, no question about it. I'm thinking, and I look to the board, I would think 120 days to be well under way of resolving all of the problems, but I'm open as far as the days are concerned. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 120 days -- to wait 120 days for a respondent to come in front of us and say well, I've done a couple things and I'm looking for another 120 days is the wrong message to send. I think we need to have a shorter time period and have him come in front of us knowing that the fine is going to be occurring every day. We need to have his feet to the fire on this. MR. UESPERANCE: Is there a way for him to report back to us at regular intervals? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, we can put that into the order. We did get away from that for awhile because it just became tedious, but maybe in this situation it might be best. Herminio and then Azure. MR. ORTEGA: I think that the respondent made a request that needs some time, and maybe it may not be in favor of this board, but perhaps come back in a month with a plan. Because I believe he needs to discuss it with his client. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure? MS. SORRELS: I just wanted to make clarification, I do believe Page 105 16 Ik�1 �510 July 2 that you guys right now are trying to resolve the -- provide a recommendation for the property maintenance case. The property maintenance case, the property maintenance issues are strictly going to be on the mobile homes, broken out windows, boarded windows, the exterior structure of the mobile home, separating, exposing the insulation and everything on the inside. So property maintenance issues, those would not require a permit. So if you're ruling on the property maintenance case, maybe that might help clarify. CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, I understand what you're saying, that permits aren't required, which is good, because the owner of the property would have to pull them. And since it's a commercial property, they'd have to get a contractor. But it's good that the homeowners can make these repairs. The question is, can the owner of the property, you know, can he tell his tenants you have 30 days to fix that broken window? And I think that's the issue the respondent's asking for additional time. So I think it applies in both cases. MR. ERICKSON: One thing I'd like to point out, that one -- Lot 12, the one that was the most devastated lot, that was a lot we had the biggest problem with trying to get people out. There was like 12 people living in that lot, none of them with a lease. We couldn't get them -- the Sheriffs Department couldn't take them out because somebody had an address there. We had to go to court, get a judge to throw them out. And when they were leaving, they did the vast majority of that destruction in the last two to three weeks. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Patti, if you want to add something, you can be sworn in. MS. PETRULLI: Yes, for the record, Supervisor Patti Petrulli with Collier County Code Enforcement. I just want -- Page 106 1611 B5 -1 July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Wait, before -- (Ms. Petrulli was duly sworn.) MS. PETRULLI: I'm sorry, she's rubbing off on me. I just wanted to bring up a point that I have some concerns. I think this mobile home park is a disaster just waiting to happen, especially the units where there's three families living in there, with makeshift kitchens and so forth. And I also have concerns that we were there in April and took the time to walk the mobile home park with the manager and with the owner who flew in from Chicago. But we had no communication with him at all until Investigator Sorrels called him. And we had told him at that time if he did not move forward we would take this to a hearing. I get concerned when we're saying about giving this person more time when we had no communication at all with the owner of this property until we initiated it when we were going to a hearing. So I would just like you to take that into consideration. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Patti. Okay, any further questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have 120 days thrown out. Does anyone else have a suggestion for days out? Yeah, just a suggestion is what you made? MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah, I think -- I'm thinking about what the county has said. Let's reduce that to 90 days to show good faith. But I agree with having them come back to code enforcement within the next 30 days with some sort of an action plan. And lacking that, the penalties are going to be severe on this. This is a real blight on the community. We also have two other cases that we decided earlier at 60 days and one at seven days, so we're going to see some activity out there immediately. So I would like to modify it from 120 to 90. I think that probably Page 107 1611 95 " July 22, 2010 would be more in line. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you have -- you want them to come in front of us, let's say next board hearing in August. And is there going to be a penalty if there's not progress being made, or will the penalties just start at 90 days? MR. ERICKSON: I would request that -- I don't know if the court has this auth -- or if the board has this authority, is to reserve on the penalty until we come -- give us at the next meeting. I think that's an appropriate resolution in part, that we show up at the next meeting with a plan as to what we're going to do and find out, because right now we don't know how much can be done in 90 days or 120 days. And clearly this requires a plan. And for another 30 days to develop a plan, I think that is the best way to proceed. And the board could assess -- decide what type of penalties to assess after that. MR. LEFEBVRE: With all due respect, I think that's inappropriate. I think 90 days is more than ample time to get a plan of action. As Patti has stated, that in April this was brought to your attention. You had an opportunity to sit down and come up with a plan through a stipulated agreement. That was not brought forth. I see very little good faith put forward by this owner. MR. ERICKSON: No, excuse me, I'm saying 30 days for the plan. That's what I'm saying. That we -- I've not been involved at all in establishing a plan, and I think it's going to take 30 days to establish a plan. MR. LEFEBVRE: I understand. But what I'm trying to get at is, since March this has been brought to the owner's attention. And April he had more communication. And I just don't see this being dragged out another month for a plan of action. You should have had a plan of action when you came here on what to do. And it just seems like you want us to tell -- you want us as a board to tell you what to do when now you're just telling us we want Page 108 161185 July 22, 2010 to work out a plan. You had a chance to work out a plan three months ago, four months ago when this was brought to your attention and that wasn't done. So I have a real problem with you now telling us we want to come up with a plan. It seems like you're just trying to drag this out, to be honest with you. MR. ERICKSON: I don't see it that way, because I see today's board meeting the crux of this. Yes, there's negotiations with the county and now we're dealing with the board that we will be dealing with that makes the decisions. And again, I'm not going to make excuses for my client not having addressed it earlier. I don't know exactly why he hadn't or didn't. But I know he has addressed -- there was two other issues that have been before, as I said, Magistrate Garretson that have been -- that we are addressing and have been addressed. And clearly this needs to be addressed immediately. CHAIRMAN KELLY: In the essence of time, I want to clarify the motion and see where it is from here. Right now it's at, at next meeting we have a full report as to an action plan which identifies all the structures that need to be maintained, replaced, permitted, demo'd, and that report given to the board. And then that action plan also to detail corrective actions and when they'll be completed. So not only identifying the problem but also letting us know what the plan is to fix them and how long it's going to take. And then all of those actions to be 90 days from today? MR. KAUFMAN: Today, completed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Should you not have the time to complete it in 90 days, just the same as we did with the other two cases, they could come back and say, you know, that we need an extension of time. But at that time we'll see what progress is going on. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So basically what we're going to Iff M um 1611B5 4 July 22, aoio do here is we're going to fill in the blanks. Everything's going to be 90 days. And what is the fine amount? MR. KAUFMAN: 250 a day. CHAIRMAN KELLY: $250 per day. MS. RAWSON: Now, is the 90 days not going to start until next month, so you're really talking about 120? MR. KAUFMAN: No, 90 days starts today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Starts today. Which will give them an additional 60 days on top of their plan. I mean, we're not really going to approve or deny your plan, we just want to see that it was done. So 30 days or the next meeting have the plan completed or $250 per day until it is completed. Ninety days from today to have that plan completely implemented. So it shows some good faith, not only had the plan but actually started working on it. MR. ERICKSON: No, I understand. The board seems to be very understanding if problems do come up that can be addressed. So I don't have any problem with that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Now, is there anything else? MR. ORTEGA: I have a major concern. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Go ahead. MR. ORTEGA: And I concur with my colleague. We're not in the position to establish or dictate zoning regulations or when it was done or whatever, but what if -- and we are basically telling our respondent that he needs to make certain repairs. But what if the repairs that are being made are being made to units that cannot even exist? CHAIRMAN KELLY: If that's the case, then the county will tell them they have to be demo'd. MR. ERICKSON: I would address that by saying yes, I see that Page 110 1611 B5 ° July 22, 2010 as a very clear problem on my client's behalf. And I would not recommend to him to make repairs on something that's going to not get him beyond the zoning issue if there's a zoning issue that has to be addressed -- MR. KAUFMAN: This what we're talking now is just the property maintenance. MR. ORTEGA: Right. That's why I brought it up. Because you might be fixing windows and whatever to structures that cannot even exist or not supposed to exist. MR. ERICKSON: And that will have to be dealt with in that plan, that we -- you know, that he will have to consider all those in formulating his plan. MR. ORTEGA: Sir, are we in a position -- this question is for the Chair -- where they come back to us with a plan and they're going to fix everything they're supposed to fix. But are we to determine or bring into light or request of what is legal and what is not? CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, it's not our jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is just to get it in compliance. So the only reason why the plan was brought up is because we want to make sure that there's an action, it doesn't just sit until the end of the 90 days, and oh, yeah, fines are occurring, I'm going to sell the property or it's in foreclosure. MR. ORTEGA: No, I concur with that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So this is on the property maintenance. The motion is ending in 3098. Do you have the motion clarified, Jean? MS. RAWSON: I hope so. I think so. CHAIRMAN KELLY: There was just the one additional paragraph on the plan. Okay, all those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 111 16 Ill B5 Jury 22, 2010 MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have one opposed, Gerald. THE COURT REPORTER: Who seconded it? MR. KAUFMAN: I made the motion. I don't know. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Who did second that? I'm a horrible chairman. MR. UESPERANCE: Lionel seconded it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, let's try it again. I apologize. MR. KAUFMAN: I make the motion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Now let's call it to a vote. All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Still opposed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald is opposed. Okay, there we go. Thank you for keeping us in line. Now, do you want to do -- can we use the same as the last plan and just duplicate it for this one? Because I believe we were talking about them together as the same. MS. WALDRON: No, it's a completely different recommendation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I know, but what I'm saying is I think we want a plan, I think -- because we were bringing them together, I think Page 112 161 ;uly '2010 everything was discussed in the same manner. Because we're not going to suggest to maintain something that's not supposed to be there in the first place, so I would really like to see the dates and everything to be the same. MS. SORRELS: I see what you're saying. We're now addressing the permit phase. And you're saying that you're looking to do the same recommendation for this case as the property maintenance case, that way it balances out with each other so that way we're not having individuals doing work to things that are not even supposed to be there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Exactly right. Do I have it right? Anyone from the board object to that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: In that case, do you want to make a -- MR. KAUFMAN: I make the same motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And this is on case 4059. MS. WALDRON: We still have to address the permitting issue, though, which is in the recommendation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So if you would, could you read the description of the violation, and then we'll use the time frame blanks similar to what we did the last time. MS. SORRELS: All right. Operational costs to be paid at $81.15. Respondent must obtain all required Collier County building permits, inspections, Certificate of Completions for all the mentioned unpermitted structures, additions and /or alterations, or obtain a demolition permit and demolish the mentioned unpermitted structures, additions and alterations within "X" amount of days of this hearing or "X" amount fine per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains. MR. ERICKSON: For the record, I would -- I don't even know if it's appropriate, but I would like to make an objection, because I'm not sure he can obtain demolition -- obtain either the repairs or the Page 113 16r. R5 my 22, 2010 demolitions to these properties that he does not own. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I understand that -- MR. ERICKSON: I just don't want to waive that possibility -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's been noted that the objection is there. And I believe we've tried to be lenient -- MR. ERICKSON: I agree. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If that's the case, if there is some kind of open litigation or legal matters that are going on, that would be a strong argument for that particular unit and why you're not able to abate that fine. MR. ERICKSON: I agree. MR. KAUFMAN: We don't have the cost list on this one. CHAIRMAN KELLY: There wasn't on the other one either, but she mentioned them verbally. MS. WALDRON: Yeah, it's 81.15. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make the same motion, the 90 days, $250 fine, with the addition of the 30 -day paragraph that our illustrious Chairman has put forth. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the report at the next meeting. MR. KAUFMAN: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. ORTEGA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Herminio. Any discussion? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, doesn't this case have a little bit more life and safety impact where you've got converted spaces that people are living in today that we have no idea whether it meets anything? Whereas the last case didn't, it was kind of a maintenance issue. Here we say that we have alterations consisting of but not limited to sheds, carports converted to living space. You have people living in these spaces now. Page 114 16- f 185 Jury 2, aoio CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're exactly right. And that's why we originally -- when we started talking about it, that's why we took into consideration the fact that we might not be able to do anything to somebody else's property. We're basically giving the 90 days because we feel as though that's a reasonable time frame to evict or to notice or to give the tenants time to correct. I think that's the intent behind the motion. But if you have another thought? MR. LAVINSKI: No, I guess the only thought is if we still have people living there for 90 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anyone else second that thought? Do you want to do something different? MR. DEAN: I don't know how you can do anything different, because you don't know who lives where, you don't have any leases, and they run electric from one place across the place to another place. I mean, it's a mess. What do you do? So I think we're doing a good job just getting as far as we got. And I think that gentleman -- I hope he goes back to Mr. McKay and explains how our heartfelt thought goes out to those people if they do have a problem. And I think we're doing that step about getting the FPL out there right away in fixing that issue. And so I hope we get it in the right direction. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. With that we'll go ahead and call a vote. All those in favor? MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: One. Jim, I didn't -- were you an aye? Page 115 16 1 "' 9 5 July 22, 2010 MR. LAVINSKI: No, I was still thinking. Yeah, I'd vote no. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So we have two no's and the rest of the board for. So the motion does pass. And that will mimic the first one. Now, since we're through all the cases, just to recap, the electrical issues, the emergency imminent electrical issues within seven days or $500 per day. There is the general electrical litter and vehicles within 60 days or $200 per day. Then there's the maintenance and non - permitted structure repair plan to be presented at the next meeting or a fine of $250 per day. And then to fix those maintenance and non - permitted structures within 90 days from today or $250 per day fine will accrue. All operational costs are to be paid within 30 days of today. And as representing the board, I'd like to take a moment to express how severe the situation is to the owner. If you could relay that information. MR. ERICKSON: I think it's very clear. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. This is very serious. And I appreciate your assistance. MR. ERICKSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. We're about to lose our attorney, so if you're okay, we'll just keep trudging along? MS. SORRELS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're welcome. Now moving on to imposition of fines. First one is going to be Lisa Dasher. MS. WALDRON: The county is requesting to withdraw this case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we're withdrawing Dasher. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are we going to have to amend the agenda at Page 116 16`i � B5 July 2> 2010 all, or no? CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's that we heard the case at that timeframe and then it was withdrawn, so I think it's good. And then the next one is going to be Gilot. MS. WALDRON: The county's also requesting to withdraw this case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Then how about Moran? I appreciate your patience, sir. MS. WALDRON: In the essence of time, I believe that Mr. Moran is going to request a reduction of fines, so if we could not read all the information and just let him ask for that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Absolutely. We do have to read at least the minimum of the case and we do have to swear the two in. MS. WALDRON: Sure. I can state the case. The case is CESD20080007126, Manuel F. and Ana L. Moran. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. If you just want to speak to the board about, you know, maybe why you're requesting the reduction of the fines. And I understand that it is now in compliance? MR. MORAN: Yes, sir. The problem is I don't build the building. I buy the house with the building. And one of the steps on my contract when I buy the house was to finish the building first, and then finish a physical. But not on the papers. And I don't nothing about legal things on this cases. I seen the paper outside there, I suppose to contact the Collier County review the house before I buy it. I know that for my next. But anyway, I request abate the fine because the house is still in foreclosure now. And anyway, I know that, I finish that to be nice with the Collier County. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I appreciate you going through those motions. Here's a home that's actually in foreclosure and the gentleman Page 117 1611 B5 July 22, 2010 still stood up and fixed the violation even though he bought the home with them preexisting. That's very admirable. Thank you, sir. He's asking for a reduction or possibly abatement of the fines. Do I hear a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll make a motion to abate. MR. ORTEGA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Herminio. All those in favor? MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. No fines. MR. MORAN: Thank you everybody. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next one is Salgat. Did we have respondents waiting and then I guess left? MS. WALDRON: One of them was for the case that we -- one of them that we withdrew. do it. Jr. MR. KAUFMAN: Somebody in a red shirt? (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just real quick, let's read this case in. I'll This is Case No. CESD20100002534, and it is Herbert A. Salgat, Investigator Paul, is this still not in compliance? MR. PAUL: This is still not in compliance. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you know if they've made any Page 118 1611 B5 July 22, 2010 attempts to -- MR. PAUL: He's not going to do anything. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose the fines. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MS. WALDRON: Let me just state real fast. It's 250 a day for the period between June 27, 2010 to July 22, 2010, 26 days, for a total of 6,500. Fines continue to accrue. Operational cost of 80.57 not paid. Total lien amount $6,580.57. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir. MR. ORTEGA: You made the statement that he's not going to do anything. How do we know? MR. PAUL: He's told me prior that he's just going to allow the bank to take the house. MR. ORTEGA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKL• Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. MR. PAUL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case. This is an imposition of fines, Department Case No. CESD20090015779, Alexander and Joanka C. Diaz Dominguez. Page 119 16E1 B5 July 22, ao 10 The violation still exists. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. This was a grow house that was -- (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. RODRIGUEZ: This particular property is in Naples Park, and it was a grow house. The property owner, the husband is in jail and the wife, we don't expect that she'll be doing anything. It is still out of compliance and so we just want to impose the fines at this point. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Wait. wait. Let's hear Jen. MS. WALDRON: It's $500 a day for the period between June 271 2010 to July 22nd, 2010, 26 days, total of $13,000. Fines continue to accrue. Operational cost of $80.57 have not been paid. Total lien amount, $13,080.57. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion passes unanimously. Are there any reports, comments? MS. WALDRON: Yes, I have Ms. Flagg's foreclosure report. As of today, there have been 19,351 foreclosures since January of Page 120 16 11 65 July 22, 2010 2008. There were 7,872 foreclosures in 2008. 8,366 foreclosures in 2009. 3,113 foreclosures in 2010 through the month of June. As of through July 19th, 2010, the banks have expended $1,642,000 to abate violations and have abated 1,247 cases. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. Thank you. Thanks for all your hard work. If there's nothing else, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll see you next month, August 26th, 2010, back here in the chambers. Thank you. Page 121 hl I B 5 July 22, 2010 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:41 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Kenneth Kelly, Chairman These minutes approved b the board on �� as pp Y presented K or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 122 Ll Fiala Hales }ienning Coyne Coletta RECE- Vc AUG 18 2010 Board of County Commissioners I/ June 16, 2010 16 11 166 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD Naples, Florida, June 16, 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 (Excused) Patrick White Lee Horn Jon Walker ALSO PRESENT: Patrick Neale, Attorney for the Board Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney Michael Ossorio, Contractor Licensing Supervisor Ian Jackson, License Compliance Officer lw,'sc. Corres: Date: (� �::es ?o: IN i' :. -- 161'A �j 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 Jon Walker was welcomed as a new member of the Contractor Licensing Board (CLB). II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: Mr. Horn noted Craig Bouchard indicated he would not be present for business reasons and asked his item be continued until the next meeting. Ian Jackson, License Compliance Officer noted the following changes to the Agenda: Item V. (B) — Deletion of Craig Bouchard. Item VI. (E) — Addition of Eryk Hardwick. Item V. (B) — Introduction of new Staff member Tom Keegan III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman Lykos noted it has been Board Policy to not hear additions to the Agenda for new Applications. Discussion took place on allowing the item to be placed on the Agenda as there will not be a July meeting. Mr. Joslin moved to approve the Agenda with the noted additions subject to a brief recess to review Mr. Hardwick's file prior to hearing his Application. Second by Mr. White. Carried unanimously 8 -0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DATE: May 19, 2010 Mr. Lantz moved to approve the minutes of the May 19, 2010 Regular and Workshop meetings. Second by Mr. Joslin. Carried unanimously 8 -0. V. DISCUSSION (A) End of Month Report— May 2010 Michael Ossorio, Contractor Licensing Supervisor presented the End of Month Report and noted a more detailed Report will be provided at the August meeting. (B) Craig Bouchard — (removed) 2 161. B6 June 16, 2010 (C) Introduction of Tom Keegan _ Tom Keegan was introduced as a new employee to the Department. He is a field officer and has transferred from the Code Enforcement Department. 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. Joslin moved to approve the Orders of the Board. Second by Mr. Jerulle. Carried unanimously 8 -0. (B) Gary A. Bloom — Six Month Credit Review Mr. Bloom was sworn in Mr. Bloom stated the CLB approved issuance of his license at the December 2009 meeting subject to a review of his credit report in 6 months. He provided the updated report which indicated improvements to many of his outstanding accounts. He has 2 remaining vehicle loans that went delinquent due to the affects of Hurricane Wilma which he will begin addressing in July of 2010. Mr. Joslin noted he was Chairman of the CLB at the time of Mr. Bloom's previous hearing and noted he had addressed 9 outstanding accounts and improved his credit score. He has complied with the request of the CLB. Chairman Lykos reviewed the previous order of the Board which required the Applicant to provide an updated Credit Report in 6 months to determine if his license should be removed from "restrictive status." Michael Ossorio, Contracting Licensing Supervisor stated Staff recommends Mr. Bloom's license be removed from the "restrictive status." Mr. Joslin moved for Mr. Bloom's license be now classified as "unrestrictive." Second by Mr. Lantz. Carried unanimously 8 -0. (C) Charles C. Wiley — Qualify 2 "d Entity Mr. Wiley was sworn in Mr. Wiley and David Bryant, Attorney addressed the CLB noting the Application is to qualify a Second Entity (Asphalt Maintenance and Sealcoat, Inc.) to his license (B &W Paving Constrictors of SWFL) for Striping and Sealing Asphalt related to his existing asphalt paving operation. Michael Ossorio stated Staff recommends approval of the Application. 3 I 6 B June 16, 2010 Under Board discussion the following was noted: Mr. Wiley's license was revoked in 1996 and re- instated in 1997. In May of 2009 he was found in violation of the Contractor Licensing Ordinance with penalties resulting. Mr. Bryant, Attorney addressed the infractions noting: • The license revocation in 1996 was due to an administrative error where the license renewal form was sent to his Naples address, not Illinois where he was residing at the time. The license was re- issued. The 2009 violation for operating without proper license was settled by the Board. Patrick Neale, Attorney for the Board noted the May 2009 violation was settled by the Board with a $1000 fine and 1 year probation. Based on the record, Mr. Bloom has successfully completed his probation and any fines would need to be paid prior to issuance of his license. Mr. Joslin moved to approve Mr. Bloom's request to Qualify a Second Entity. Second by Mr. Walker. Carried unanimously 8 -0. (D) Peter Spiska - Qualify 2 "d Entity Mr. Spiska was sworn in. Mr. Spiska addressed the Board noting he is requesting to Qualify a Second Entity (Marblest and Granite, LLC.) to his license (Marble Granite Direct, Inc.). for installation of Marble and Granite countertops related to his existing cabinet and countertop business. Michael Ossorio noted Staff recommends approval of the Application. Mr. Joslin moved to approve the Application. Second by Mr. Boyd. Carried unanimously 8 -0. Break: 9: 35am Reconvened: 9: 40am (E) Eryk Hardwick — Request Waiver of Testing Requirements for Residential Contractor License Mr. Hardwick was sworn in. Ian Jackson, License Compliance Officer provided and overview of the Application noting: • Mr. Hardwick was originally issued a Residential Contractors License in Collier County in 2001. He also obtained the proper licensing with the State of Florida. The license expired in 2005. 4 ..:. 164 Je 1 R,60 • He subsequently acquired a DeSoto County Residential Contractor License. To date, he has completed all steps necessary in retaining his certifications with the State of Florida. He is requesting the testing requirements for issuance of a Collier County Residential Contractors License be waived. Michael Ossorio noted: • Beyond the required testing, the re- instatement requires him to pay any necessary County and State of Florida back fees for the previous 3 years. • Re- instatement also requires he pass the necessary Residential Contractor and Business Procedure Tests unless a waiver of tests is granted. • In 2005 he successfully completed the required test, but did not follow through and finalize re- issuance of his license. • He has paid the necessary fees to the State of Florida. Staff recommends approval of the Request for Waiver for testing. Under Board discussion the following was noted: • Mr. Hardwick should update his application with additional reference phone numbers. • The credit report filed with the application indicates an account went to collection in May of 2010. Mr. Hardwick noted the account in question was related to a medical bill of $540 and he itis addressing the issue. Mr. Lantz moved to waive all testing requirements for Eryk Hardwick for his Residential Contractors License application. Second by Mr. White. Carried unanimously 8 -0. VII. OLD BUSINESS: None VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None IX. REPORTS: The Board determined the July 18, 2010 meeting would be cancelled with the next meeting being August 18, 2010. Michael Ossorio noted: • Any Board members with comments on the amendments proposed for the Contractor Licensing Ordinance be emailed to Staff. • Mr. Boyd's term is expiring and requires re- application to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). 5 161 R tine IR 0 "Code of Ethics " documents were provided for Board members. If members have any questions, please contact Contractor Licensing Staff or Ian Mitchell, the BCC Manager. Mr. White noted, as a matter of procedure, he will be consulting the County Attorney regarding any possible conflicts with the CLB and a Board he sat on which was awarded a Tourist Development Council Grant. Mr. Lantz recommended a question be added to the Contractor License Application which requires an applicant to disclose if they have ever had a license denied, revoked, found in violation, issued with conditions, etc. (or similar wording.) Mr. Joslin reported the public should be aware of a possible scam regarding "Corporate Minutes Filing for the State of Florida" being perpetrated by individuals through the mail. X. NEXT MEETING DATE: to Wednesday July -9, 2010 - W. Harmon Turner Building, 3rd floor (Commissioners Meeting Room) - 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, fl 34112 (Courthouse Complex) — Cancelled Next Meeting August 21, 2010. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 9:48 AM. COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD ,Thomas These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on , as presented , or as amended "'A' . rel Fiala --1 B7 RECEIVED Halas AUG 19 2010 Henning Coyle June __--� June 2, 2010 eiUitil .eI l;i ai 1 "- , a% 7 Ttlti41i',it81 ti COletta MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, June 2, 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 Division/Planning & Regulation, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: William Varian Vice Chair: David Dunnavant Ray Allain James Boughton Clay Brooker (Excused) Laura Spurgeon DeJohn Dalas Disney Marco Espinar Blair Foley Regan Henry George Hermanson David Hurst Reed Jarvi Robert Mulhere Mario Valle Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison Phil Gramatges, Interim Director, Public Utilities Jamie French, Director, Operations Bill Lorenz, Director, Land Development Services Susan Istenes, AICP, Manager, Special Projects Diane Flagg, Director, Code Enforcement Gary Harrison, Building Official Robert Wiley, Principal Project Mgr., Watershed Study..Pmj -1 as V) L L�a;i #: uic —I— a t0: 161197 14 June 2, 2010 I. Call to Order: Chairman William Varian called the meeting to order at 3:04 PM and read the procedures to be followed during the meeting. II. Approval of Agenda: Marco Espinar moved to approve the Agenda as submitted Second by Robert Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 12-0. III. Approval of Minutes — May 5, 2010 Meeting: Dalas Disney moved to approve the Minutes of the May S, 2010 meeting as submitted Second by Reed Jarvi. Carried unanimously, 12-0. (Laura Spurgeon DeJohn arrived at 3:07 PM.) IV. Public Speakers: (None) V. Growth Management Division Staff Announcements/Updates: A. Public Utilities Division Update — Phil Gramatges, Interim Director • A number of projects have been delayed over the past two years • $29M will be requested for New Projects in the Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2011 • Carryover from F/Y 2010 is anticipated ($60 - $70M) • There is a staff shortage in Planning & Project Management — initially two Principal Project Managers and two Senior Project Managers were needed o One Senior Project Manager and one Principal Project Manager have been hired • Recruiting for the position of Director — Mr. Gramatges is retiring (July 15) B. Fire Review Update — Ed Riley, Fire Code Official • Monthly Report was submitted — Committee's information packet • Percentage of First Reviews Approved -• 35% Chairman Varian stated the percentage appeared to be very low. C. Transportation Planning Section Update — Michael Greene, Transportation Planning Manager • No report D. Planning and Regulation Update — Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator • No report VI. Old Business: (None) 1611 B7 June 2, 2010 VII. New Business: B. Growth Management Fee Schedule Updates — Bill Lorenz, Director - Land Development Services and Diane Flagg, Director — Code Enforcement (A copy of the Memorandum dated May 26, 2010 was distributed to the Committee.) • Proposed changes: Inspection Fees and Code Enforcement Fees • Current policy: 100% of Inspection Fees are collected at application o Proposed change: collect 50% at application and balance at the Pre - Construction Meeting • Fees are non - refundable (George Hermanson arrived at 3 :13 PM) • The Fee Schedule will be reviewed on a quarterly basis to determine if changes should be made • The Fee Schedule Resolution will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners on June 22, 2010 uestions: (1) "Why collect Inspection Fees before the project comes to fruition ?" • Inspectors must be on staff (trained) before projects begin and fees help to maintain staff (2) "Why not collect balance at another point in the process? (3) "Why not collect 50% at Pre - Construction Meeting and balance at turnover or at acceptance of preliminary utilities ?" (4) "Have you considered collecting a smaller percentage? Why 50 % ?" (5) "What was the origin of the 2.25% -- why was that figure chosen ?" Concern was expressed if the fees are paid and the project stalls, there is no opportunity for a refund. Suggestion: The policy should be re- examined to provide some recourse for a refund. It was noted fees are currently refundable on a case -by -case basis. Mr. Lorenz stated a request can be made for a refund and it is presented to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. He further stated if a project changes, the probable estimated costs will be revised. Diane Flagg presented revisions to "EE) Failure to Obtain a Permit" Background: The Board of County Commissioners is seeking compliance with Code Enforcement regulations rather than strict assessment of fines. When a violation is abated, fines have been waived after the hard costs (i.e., operational or abatement costs incurred by the County) are paid. The Waiver Request is presented to the BCC on behalf of the individual and the BCC determines whether or not to approve it. Revisions: • In Section 1, when work is started without obtaining a permit, the fee is 2x the regular fee which is consistent with the Building Code. 16 B7 Ine 2 2010 • In Sections 2, 3, and 4, if the property owner obtains compliance, the fee will be assessed at the regular rate. However, a contractor will be charged 2x the regular fee since the contractor should have knowledge of the regulations. • In Section 5, the date was changed from April 30, 1997 to April 1, 1997. • Section 5 is based upon an existing Ordinance that was largely ignored in the past. If a property owner can provide a "preponderance of evidence" that the structure in question was built prior to April 1, 1997 and in compliance with the Codes existing at that time, then a permit will be issued without a fee. There was a discussion concerning the County's responsibility regarding record keeping. It was noted Record Department moved several times and there was a flood that contributed to the County's inability to locate documentation prior to April 1, 1997. • A series of flow charts have been drafted to assist Staff to determine an Affirmative Defense may be applied to the case. Other processes include Permit by Affidavit and After - the -Fact Permit. • Code Enforcement Investigators are required to walk property owners through the process and assist them with research to obtain a resolution. Gary Harrison, Building Official, explained the process, i.e., an Inspector will be sent to the property and the homeowner will remove whatever is necessary (dry wall or receptacles, etc.) to determine the age of construction. Jamie French stated the goal was to obtain consistency in the language based on directions from the BCC and management. Currently a homeowner will pay 4 times the fee to obtain an After - the -Fact Permit while a contractor will be only 2 times the fee. If a homeowner is voluntarily complying, they would not be charged a fee. Further revisions may be necessary to specify that the homeowner must make the property easily accessible. He noted Florida Building Codes will be observed. There was an objection to the term "preponderance" as a qualifier and it was suggested to strike the word. Mr. French stated the language was taken directly from the Ordinance. [Definition: Preponderance of the Evidence: A standard of proof that must be met by a Plaintiff if he /she is to win a civil action. • The greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non- criminal) lawsuit for the Trier of Fact (jury or Judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case while "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial.) 4 16I 1 B7 ' June 2, 2010 Jamie French answered the questions posed earlier: • Regarding the 2.25 percentage, he will order a Fee Study to see if this is the correct number and return with the results. • Regarding the 50% Fee Split, the split was proposed to assist the developer who would benefit from having less cash to produce at the beginning of the project. The 50% that is retained enables the County to retain licensed professionals on staff. • Regarding the non - refundable payments, the County Attorney's Office has concurred it is implied all fees within the Fee Schedule are non - refundable. • Contractors have the right to appeal to the Board of County Commissioners for a refund and the Board can grant refunds on a case -by -case basis. He stated if a fee is collected in error, a refund will be provided. If the scope of the project changes, the fees can be adjusted. Staff does not have the ability to make any changes to the Fee Schedule or to authorize a refund without BCC approval. Robert Mulhere moved to recommend approving the changes to the Fee Schedule while requesting Staff clarify the process by which a refund, in general, might be obtained. Second by Mario Valle. A suggestion was made to amend the Motion to add inserting the phrase "unless otherwise granted by the Board of County Commissioners" at the end of each paragraph under `BE — Failure to Obtain a Permit. " Robert Mulhere amended the Motion to include the suggested language. Second by Mario Valle. Carried unanimously, 14 -0. A. Presentation: Administrative Code — Susan Istenes, AICP, Manager - Special Projects (Copies of the Table of Contents /Introductory Chapter and the Conditional Uses Procedures were distributed to the Members.) Ms. Istenes stated a draft of the Administrative Code has been completed and is in review. She explained the "Administrative Code" is, in essence, an Administrative Procedures Manual. • Currently, all administrative procedures are part of the Land Development Code along with Development Regulations. • The majority of the procedures and processes are located in Chapter 10 of the LDC and the language from the Chapter has been inserted into the Administrative Code, re- organized and reformatted. • The consultant reviewed the LDC and made suggestions regarding moving items within the LDC (for better organization) and moving portions of the LDC into the Code of Laws and Ordinances. For example, the Conditional Uses Procedures has been moved to the Administrative Code. • The approval process will include amending the LDC, the Administrative Code and the Code of Laws and Ordinances. 1611 June 010 • The full document, including revisions, will be provided to DSAC and other Advisory Committees prior to presenting to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. Errors/Typos noted: • The abbreviation for Development Services Advisory Committee is DSAC, not DRAC • Historic /Archaeological Preservation Board is the correct name for the Committee, not "Historical" A suggestion was made to cross - reference the criteria and factual data used to make decisions regarding a Conditional Use in the LDC. Ms. Istenes suggested dividing the adoption process into phases: the first phase was drafting the Administrative Code. The second phase will be to review of the contents, processes and procedures. Consensus: To go forward with the work and the suggested adoption process. VIII. Committee Member Comments: (1) David Hurst Topic: Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance • Questioned who may become a member of the Floodplain Management Planning Committee Robert Wiley stated membership consists of citizens (50 %), Staff (50 %) in addition to a position for one representative from the City of Marco Island, the City of Naples and Everglades City, if the municipalities chose to participate. There is currently one vacancy. The meetings are noticed and open to the public. Chairman Varian noted the Ordinance prohibits anyone from the Industry from applying for membership. Mr. Wiley stated the next meeting for the Floodplain Management Planning Committee is July 12`h. Mr. Hurst stated there are consultants who would like to voice their concerns and suggested scheduling a meeting with Mr. Wiley. It was noted only Mr. Hurst could attend as a representative of DSAC in order to avoid a conflict with the Sunshine Laws. Mr. Wiley asked the Committee members to send their comments regarding the draft of the Ordinance distributed at the last DSAC meeting. He noted FEMA considers the entire County as a "Coastal Community" within the flood insurance program. (4:40 PM— George Hermanson left) Chairman Varian reminded the members to send their comments to Judy who will forward them to Mr. Wiley. (2) David Hurst requested an Update to the Road Impact Fees and asked to add that topic to the next Agenda and for Amy Patterson to appear and explain. 16fiB7"1 June 2, 2010 Next Meeting Dates: July 7, 2010 — 3:00 PM August 4, 2010 — 3:00 PM September 1, 2010 — 3:00 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 4:50 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE William Varian, Chairman The Minutes were �a ved by the Board/Committee on _ Z( 4.2, as presented ✓ , or as amended Fiala & `il/ p]J U N E V Halas B7 Henning AUG 0 5 2010 Coy1e - ---- -� July 21, 2010 Coletta nh= 179'.6f THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, July 21, 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 Division/Planning & Regulation, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN: William Varian (Excused) Vice Chair: David Dunnavant Ray Allain James Boughton Clay Brooker (Excused) Laura Spurgeon DeJohn Dalas Disney (Excused) Marco Espinar Blair Foley 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 James French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Nathan Beals, Project'Manager, Public Utilities Division Amy Patterson, Impact Fee & Economic Development Manager Ed Riley, Fire Code Official, Fire Code Office Michael Greene, Transportation Planning Manager Paul Mattausch, Director, Water Dept. Mist. Comes: �i thm S: Copies to: 16 .., B 7 July 21, 2010 I. Call to Order: Vice Chairman David Dunnavant called the meeting to order at 3:03 PM and read the procedures to be followed during the meeting. II. Approval of Agenda: Blair Foley moved to approve the Agenda as submitted Second by Mario Valle. Carried unanimously, 10 -0. III. Approval of Minutes —May 5, 2010 Meeting: Changes. • On Page 6, under Item VIII (2), the request for an Update of Road Impact Fees was made by David Dunnavant, not David Hurst. Robert Mulhere moved to approve the Minutes as amended. Second by Mario Valle. Carried unanimously, 10 -0. W. Public Speakers: (Will be heard when Item is presented) V. Growth Management Division Staff Announcements/Updates: A. Public Utilities Division Update — Nathan Beals, Project Manager (Copies of the Summary of Changes to the Utilities Standards Manual were distributed to the Committee.) • The Subcommittee was disbanded • A discussion group will meet on August 17th at 2:00 PM in the Risk Management building (near the Jail) o Mr. Beals will email directions to Judy Puig, Staff Liaison, for distribution to the Committee • The revised Manual will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners on September 29, 2010 (Laura Spurgeon De-John arrived at 3:08 PM.) C. Transportation Planning Division Update — Michael Greene, Transportation Planning Manager • No Report • No questions D. Planning and Regulation Update — Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator • Regarding submission of "as built" — Any documents (drawings) submitted to the County for expansion of permanent structures must be signed and sealed by the professional who provided the original document • A raised seal will be required • An "Abstract of Title" is not required to be submitted • Sheds are not considered to be permanent structures • The policy will be outlined and issued in a future "Building Block" 161V*17 ", July 21, 2010 Re: Right -of -Way Permitting Mr. Casalanguida noted a "Right -of -Way" permit application may be submitted at the same time as a SDP ( "Site Development Plan") or PPL ( "Plans & Plats "). An SDP will not be approved until a ROW Permit has been submitted. • LDC ( "Land Development Code "): The language will be revised (from "Permit approval" to "Permit application ") during the next Cycle (George Hermanson arrived at 3:13 PM.) Re: Fee Schedules — James French, Director, Operations & Regulatory Management • Updates will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners on July 27th • There are on -going process improvements projects: • Building Plan Review — how a reviewer communicates with Staff as well as outside agencies • Goal: To expedite the process and exceed current Performance Standards • Working with Economic Recovery Task Force to identify vacant parcels with shell buildings • Building is being painted — new colors — fresh face for customers and Staff Announcements — Nick Casalanguida • Jack McKenna has been hired as the new County Engineer for Engineering Review Services and will begin work next week • The position of Director — Building Review (formerly held by Bob Dunn) is open and being advertised o Volunteers are needed to serve on the Selection Committee B. Fire Review Update — Ed Riley, Fire Code Official • Monthly Report was submitted in Committee's information packet • The number of reviews has been increasing — total 773 • Construction of building will begin in six to eight weeks — the contract for construction will be signed in the near future and permitting plans have been submitted to the City of Naples VI. Old Business: A. Impact Fee Update & Indexing — Amy Patterson, Impact Fee & Economic Development Manager • Impact Fees are cycled on a two tiers basis — they are indexed during mid -years and fully updated every three years o Parks, Jail — on indexing cycle o Transportation — mini - study, i.e., Costs /Credits Update —preliminary draft is due in September • Government Buildings, Law Enforcement, Fire and EMS — are scheduled for review with an additional component to analyze the Levels of Service o Draft is due by the end of August 81721,2010 Studies for Law Enforcement, Government Buildings, and Schools began in January, 2010 Library — potential for downward adjustment • Draft is due by the end of July, 2010 • Reed Jarvi and Mario Valle volunteered to serve on the Library Impact Fee Review Subcommittee (The Subcommittee meeting will be advertised in compliance with the Sunshine Law) Ms. Patterson will report to DSAC at the September meeting. B. Review: Fire Service RPZ ( "Reduced Pressure Back Flow Preventers ") and Line Size Water Meter Requirement — Nathan Beals and Paul Mattausch, Director, Water Dept. (Chairman William Varian appeared via conference phone during this portion of the meeting.) Vice Chairman Dunnavant viewed the televised BCC Meeting of June 8th and noted the Commissioners directed Mr. Mattausch to vet the two items with CBIA ( "Collier Building Industry Association ") and the Fire Districts bringing the subjects through DSAC. He stated the Report was just issued at 11:00 AM that morning although it had been drafted on July 6`h and the Members could not review the document due to the short notice. Mr. Mattausch was informed by Chairman Varian that DSAC would convene a Subcommittee to vet the issue. • Participants will include members from CBIA, the independent Fire Districts, community members, and DSAC members. He further stated there was concern regarding the issue of Public Health, Safety & Welfare and only the RPZ portion of the ReXort would be brought back before the BCC for reconsideration during the July 27 Board meeting. Question: Was there a justification in the Report for determining there is a Health, Safety & Welfare Issue? Mr. Mattausch stated the issue concerns down - stream cross - connections on dedicated fire service lines that are connected to a secondary source, such as reclaimed water for irrigation systems, which is a public health risk. He could not provide an exact number of cross - connections, and asserted "one" was a public health concern. He confirmed the potential risk is contamination of public drinking water by illegally connected lines. The reduced pressure device will not allow water to flow back from the cross - connection into the public water supply system. There was some confusion concerning statements made during DSAC's April meeting 16 my 010 [Excerpt from the Minutes of the April 7 2010 meeting., "A Committee member stated the revised Ordinance, presented at the March meeting by Paul Mattausch, Director of the County's Water Department, did not make sense and the presentation was an after -the -fact informational review. It was noted the Committee's questions were not satisfactorily answered. It was pointed out Mr. Mattausch stated the revisions were required by The Florida Administrative Code. A member stated The Florida Administrative Code requires the use of one of five different retention methods for Public Utility systems. The cost to the Industry will be very expensive and the metering does not accomplish the County's stated objectives. "] Question: Is this a water contamination issue or a water pressure issue? Paul Mattausch stated it is a potential drinking water contamination issue. A reduced pressure back flow assembly is being required on all services under the Ordinance. George Hermanson explained an RPZ is a more fool -proof method of preventing back flow into a public system. It is not presently required on fire lines because the fire lines are not supposed to connect to anything else. The fire lines derive water from the public water supply system. If there is back pressure in the reverse direction, the RPZ will discharge the water into the atmosphere. Question: Why is the Double Detector Check Assembly not sufficient when it has been in the past? Mr. Mattausch stated under a prior Ordinance, the requirement for the DDCA was on services that had no down - stream connections. Reduced pressure devices were required on fire line services that had down - stream connections. The Double Check can fail because it doesn't vent to the atmosphere. Discussion ensued concerning the cost to Industry — the Executive Summary did not accurately reflect the "Fiscal Impact." Other questions: Is this requirement beyond what is reasonable? Why are on -site storage and/or an air gap system not required? What does "significant renovations" entail? It was pointed out the revisions to the Ordinance will apply to new systems and systems that undergo significant renovation. A Committee member noted by not requiring retrofitting, the vast majority of the public will not be protected. The process of finding cross - connections was outlined by Mr. Mattausch. If an illegal connection is found, it is disconnected, an RPZ is installed, a Citation is issued, and a fine is assessed. Approximately 34,000 connections (fire and domestic) are inspected on a yearly basis. The number of violations found was not specified. Mr. Mattausch stated his responsibility is to create a public water drinking supply system that has as little risk as possible to the user. Mr. Mattausch was asked to forward a copy of the log detailing the number of "Boil Water" notices issued over the past two years. 16 fi' 4 Ju y 21, 2010 Public Sneakers: Dave Raub, Fire Marshall - North Naples Fire Department, stated the sense of "urgency" regarding the Health, Safety and Welfare Issue is irrelevant. He advised caution and stated facts should be obtained before any changes are made to the Ordinance. Melissa Ahern, CBIA, supported establishing a Subcommittee and requested production of records concerning incidents of cross - contamination. Joey Hatfield, Imperial Fire, stated additional discussion is needed before presenting the Ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners. The subject has not been vetted. He requested the Subcommittee include a representative from the Fire Sprinkler Industry, as well as a Civil Engineer. Chris Mitchell, Waldrop Engineering, agreed the situation is not critical and tabling the issue for one or two months would not be detrimental especially since only new Permits are affected. He volunteered to serve on the Subcommittee. David Aldrich, CBIA, stated the reason to implement the RPZs has changed — previously, it was loss of water. Use of the "air gap" is the true solution to Health, Safety and Welfare concerns. The obvious goal is to meter. The Report claims Industry has been unwilling to participate. The subject was not properly vetted in 2008 or 2009 as claimed — it was only after -the -fact. The concern is to be certain the right process is put in place. To put an RPZ in place without looking at other alternatives is not following the Commissioners' directions. To rush this through is an example of bad government. Chairman Varian (via conference call) stated he attended the June meeting of the BCC and the BCC's concern was for the issue to be properly vetted through DSAC before it was returned. A date should be scheduled for the first Subcommittee meeting and the information that DSAC is beginning the vetting process should be relayed to the Board. Robert Mulhere moved: "Contrary to the Board of County Commissioners' expressed previous direction, the Development Services Advisory Committee has not had the opportunity to fully vet this issue given that our first receipt of the "Fire Meter Report" (dated July 6, 2010) was on July 21, 2010. We would recommend the BCC defer this issue for a period of at least 180 days within which DSAC will convene a Subcommittee to vet these issues properly. If the Board feels that there are legitimate Health, Safety and Welfare Issues that need to be addressed immediately, then we would recommend a second inspection for Fire Suppression be instituted prior to final C /O." Second by Regan Henry. Pr- 87 161 July 21, 2010 Suggestion from CBIA: Schedule a second inspection if there are issues related to Health, Safety & Welfare. Mr. Mulhere amended his motion: `If the Board feels there are legitimate Health, Safety and Welfare Issues to be addressed immediately, it is recommended that, for all new connections, a second inspection for Fire Suppression be conducted prior to a final C/O." Second by Mr. Henry. Ed Riley stated Fire would not be interested in conducting a second inspection. Suggestion: The initial inspection should be conducted jointly. Bob Mulhere amended the motion to change the third sentence as follows: "If the Board feels there are legitimate Health, Safety and Welfare Issues that need to be addressed immediately, it is recommended that a procedure be developed to allow the Utilities Staff to participate in the Fire Suppression Inspection process prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy." Second by Regan Henry. Suggestion: Change the time frame from 180 to 90 days. There was further discussion concerning why the issue of Health, Safety & Welfare had not been a concern previously. Where was this concern in 2008 or 2009? The subject is future connections only. Final Motion: "Contrary to the Board of County Commissioners' expressed previous direction, the Development Services Advisory Committee has not had the opportunity to fully vet this issue given that our first receipt of the "Fire Meter Report" (dated July 6, 2010) was on July 21, 2010. We would recommend the BCC defer this issue for a period of at least 90 days to permit DSAC to convene a Subcommittee to vet these issues properly. If the Board feels there are legitimate Health, Safety and Welfare Issues that need to be addressed immediately, it is recommended that a procedure be developed to allow the Utilities Staff to participate in the Fire Suppression Inspection process prior to the issuance of a Final Certif cate of Occupancy. " The vote was taken and the Motion carried unanimously, 12 -0. David Hurst will attend the BCC meeting to represent DSAC on Tuesday, July 27�b and Vice Chairman Dunnavant will attend until 12:00 Noon. 16 87 July 21, 2010 Vice Chairman Dunnavant referred to a letter from Public Utilities concerning water consumption (over 5,000 gallons) and billing procedures. It was not clear how the metering concept will be billed — the costs to the Industry and the community versus the benefit received by the Utilities Department to protect the requirement to not "give away" water. Mr. Beaks stated representatives from Utility Billing will attend the Subcommittee to answer questions. Mr. Mattausch stated any water that is used costs money and recovery of those costs was one of the reasons for pursuing meters. Suggestion: Case studies should be presented at the Subcommittee meeting. Re: Subcommittee membership Vice Chairman Dunnavant noted Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Hatfield volunteered to serve. It was noted David Hurst, Ed Riley, Melissa Ahern, and Blair Foley also volunteered. Nick Biondo, East Naples Fire Department, was nominated. Members from the other Fire Districts were invited to attend. Mr. Mattausch and Mr. Beals will represent Staff. Suggestion: Email information and phone numbers are to be sent to Judy Puig with available dates for meetings. She will coordinate the date and location. VII. New Business: (None) VIII. Committee Member Comments: A. Mileage Reimbursement for Members (Copies of the Mileage Reimbursement Form and policy were distributed to the Committee.) If a member drives in excess of 20 miles (round trip) to attend DSAC's meetings, the excess mileage is eligible to be reimbursed. Members are to complete the form and return it to Judy Puig as soon as possible. Next Meeting Dates: August 4, 2010 — 3:00 PM September 1, 2010 — 3:00 PM October 6, 2010 — 3:00 PM November 3, 2010 — 3:00 PM December 1, 2010 — 3:00 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Vice Chairman at 4:56 PM. 16 4,1-1 f 6 Y 'i JQl 21 2010 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE David DunnavaWE Vice The Minutes w 7proved by the Board/Committee on as presented , or as amended Fiala RECEIVED Halas Henn SEA' 0 2 2010 Coyle Coyt B 7 August 4, 2010 Board of County Commissioners MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, August 4, 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 Division/Planning & Regulation, 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 Blair Foley Regan Henry George Hermanson (Excused) David Hurst (Excused) Reed Jarvi (Excused) Robert Mulhere Mario Valle ALSO PRESENT: Judy Puig, Operations Analyst --- Staff Liaison James French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Nathan Beals, Project Manager, Public Utilities Division Ed Riley, Fire Code Official, Fire Code Office Jack McKenna, Manager — Engineering Review Services Michael Greene, Transportation Planning Manager Robert Wiley, Principal Project Mgr., Watershed Study Projecll&es: Date: Item #t: Copies to: 161;1 g] w August 4, 2010 I. Call to Order: Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:02 PM and read the procedures to be followed during the meeting. H. Approval of Agenda: Clay Brooker moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Blair Foley. Carried unanimously, 11 -0. III. Approval of Minutes — July 21, 2010 Meeting: Marco Espinar moved to approve the Minutes as amended Second by Robert Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 11 -0. IV. Public Speakers: (None) V. Growth Management Division Staff Announcements/Updates: A. Public Utilities Division Update: Nathan Beals, Project Manager (Copies of a map and directions to the Utilities Discussion Group Meeting was distributed to the Committee) • The Discussion Group will meet on August 17" at 2:00 PM It was noted Paul Mattausch is unable to attend the first meeting of the Utilities/RPZ Subcommittee to be held on August 13, 2010. (Laura Spurgeon DeJohn arrived at 3:07 PM.) B. Fire Review Update: Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office • Monthly Report was submitted in Committee's information packet o Number of reviews increased in June — total 801 • The contract with DeAngelis- Diamond was signed and construction of the Fire Code building will begin in approximately six to eight weeks C. Transportation Planning Division Update: Michael Greene, Transportation Planning Manager • Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension is open • Bids for Davis (from Radio to 95 1) and for 951 (from Davis to Golden Gate Canal) will be sent out by the end of the year • Sidewalks and shoulders are being widened in the Naples Park area (15 block project) D. Planning and Regulation Update: James French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management • Jack McKenna was hired as the County Engineer and Manager of Engineering Review Services 16 11 P4 t 4 2010 • The position of Building Manager will be posted in the next week • The position will be primarily administrative and the Manager will run the day -to -day operation • Gary Harrison remains as the Building Official • Remodeling continues • The next Kaizen Event (Process Improvement Event) will focus on Building Inspections • Where do redundancies exist? • Where does waste exist? • Goal: cost savings and quicker inspections • 14 new laptops were purchased for the Building Inspectors from "found money" (from 111 Fund) VI. Old Business: A. Utilities Subcommittee Status and Action Item (July 27th BCC meeting) Update: David Dunnavant (for David Hurst) • Commissioner Halas thought the "Health/Safety/Welfare" issue meant imminent danger until David Hurst explained there were back -flow prevention devices in places and the system was not breaking down • He informed the BCC that DSAC created a Subcommittee to vet the issue and requested 90 days to complete the assignment • The BCC directed the Subcommittee to make a determination regarding the Health/Safety/Welfare component of the RPZ issue and present a report at the BCC's September 14th meeting • It was suggested to add an additional meeting to the Subcommittee's schedule of August 13th and August 27th Discussion: • It was noted the monthly cost for a six -inch meter is $700 while an 8 -inch meter is $1,200 in addition to the installation costs. • Concerning the Boil Water Alerts/Notices Log, a request was made for the document to note the cause for each incident, i.e., a break, or a contamination, or a found down - stream connection. It was suggested the first Subcommittee meeting should focus on the Health/Safety and Welfare issue and examine the metering component at a later meeting. • A Committee member noted the Water Department did not offer a basis for its claim of "Health/Safety/Welfare" issues and additional information is necessary in order to make a determination. Comments: • "If there is no retrofit of RPZs for older projects, how can the issue be an "imminent danger ?" • "If it's truly a problem, RPZs should be installed everywhere —not just on new projects." 1 10. � � 7 6 August 4, 2010 Ed Riley asked for the following information to be supplied: • What is proposed to be adopted in the Ordinance? • What is currently being enforced under the Ordinance? • What particular regulations are in place? Judy Puig will schedule a third meeting and email the date to the Subcommittee members. All information is to be submitted to Ms. Puig and she will distribute it to DSAC members as well as to the Subcommittee members. It was suggested evidence in the form of research should be presented regarding nationwide "best practices" (concerning RPZs) to determine what is prudent and practical as well as safe. B. Multiple Inspections, Stats, Discounts Update: James French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management • The issue is multiple inspections for a single trade • It was noted only three Inspectors are capable of performing multiple inspections • Other factors include the size of the property and location of the site • The cost of doing business will determine whether or not it is feasible to offer a discount for multiple inspections conducted at the same time • Less than 15% of the client base will be eligible for any type of discount • Another concern is to re- establish a small (reasonable) amount of Reserves • The question is being examined in order to make a fiscally responsible decision using a Cost -Base Model o Options will be presented to DSAC in the near future Suggestion: Offer a re- inspection fee credit Re: "CityView" _ anticipated "go live" date is January, 2011 • 95% of the IVR has been paid C. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance: Robert Wiley, Principal Project Manager, Watershed Study Project/FEMA (Copies of the Approved Draft of the Flood Management Prevention Ordinance were distributed to the Committee) Issues to be considered: • There has been controversy concerning a facility proposed to be built in a beach park due to the cost to comply with flood elevation levels and handicapped accessibility regulations. • Does the Ordinance provide some flexibility regarding the definition of "hardship" and/or granting of a variance for public facility projects. Jamie French stated FEMA indicated it would re- evaluate the County's Community Rating System if a variance had been granted to the project. 1611 B7 August 4, 2010 Robert Wiley confirmed FEMA reviews and approves the Ordinance. If an Ordinance does not comply with FEMA's basic principles, it will be rejected and a County will lose discount points for flood insurance premiums. Comments: (Page 30) The last sentence of Paragraph B, Section 6: Variance and Appeals Procedures, notes an appeal may be made to the Circuit Court. o Suggestion: Contact the County Attorney's Office for clarification since other sections in the LDC are specific regarding which type of appeal can be made, i.e., either for a full trial or a review ( "De Novo" or "Certiorari. "). [ De initions: Trial De Novo refers to a new trial on the entire case conducted as if there had been no trial in the first instance. "De novo" is a Latin expression meaning "anew ... from the beginning." A trial de novo is usually ordered by an Appellate Court when the original trial fails to make a determination in a manner dictated by law. Writ of Certiorari — an order a higher court issues in order to review the decision and proceedings in a lower court and determine whether there were any irregularities.] • (Page 30) (Paragraph C -1, under Appeals Procedure) There is a 10 -day deadline to file an appeal. o How will notification be made? When does the 10 days start to run? Suggestion: The process should be explained /clarified. Mr. Wiley reviewed the following: • Flood proofing — the recommendation was to place flood proofing at the Base Flood Elevation ( "BFE "). The building will be rated at one -foot below BFE. Flood proofing to the BFE is the minimum criteria for insurance. Suggestion: Insert a clause in the Ordinance advising the lowest flow in a non- residential building can be built to a level one -foot ABOVE the BFE. Example: In an AE Flood Zone (Coastal surge, wave heights less than 3 feet), if a non - residential building is flood proofed to one -foot above the BFE (Note: the building will be rated at the BFE), the premium for $100,000 of insurance coverage will cost $1,100. If the same building is flood proofed at the BFE (the building will be rated at one -foot below the BFE), the same policy will cost approximately $4,300. • (Page 11) Regarding "Repetitive Loss," the reference to "substantial damage" and "cumulative substantial improvements" was removed from the definition in the Ordinance to allow owners to add to the value of the structure (with an addition) during a 12 -month period without reducing its risk. 161,1' 87 �a August 4, 2010 (Page 25) There are some interior areas of the County along the canals that will be designated as "AE Flood Zones." The current map does not (and the new map will not) identify "flood ways." Criteria for "de- minimus impact" has been inserted to protect the single build applicant. Without it, an applicant must demonstrate that the work performed within a riverine plus any other possible work that may ever occur within the AE Flood Zone will not raise the Base Flood Elevation by more than one foot, and a detailed Engineering Analysis for the entire AE Flood Zone must be submitted. (Page 21) The entire page, "Building Pad, Building Floor and Slab Minimum Elevations," returns to the Ordinance the language contained in the Building Code Ordinance which was inadvertently deleted when the new Building Code was adopted last year. The BCC approved the reinstatement under a Consent Agenda. The language was revised to include local building criteria. Judy Puig noted the August 5`h meeting of the Planning Commission was cancelled and it may not meet on August 19th. The next scheduled meeting is in September. Consensus. Defer any decision until DSAC's September 1St meeting to allow Committee members to read the Ordinance and research/obtain information from other professionals regarding specific issues. (Added Issue) New Preliminary Flood Zone Maps Public meetings will be held every evening during the week of August 16th Representatives from FEMA and County Staff will be present to answer questions concerning the impact to flood insurance policies. Homeowners can view the existing and proposed Flood Zones for their property. After the Ordinance is drafted, there will be a 90 -day period for homeowners to file comments, protests, and/or appeals. The schedule and location of meetings is on the County's website. (Blair Foley left at 4:05 PM.) VII. New Business: A. Welcome to Jack McKenna, Manager — Engineering Review Services Jamie French introduced and welcomed Jack McKenna as the County Engineer. Mr. McKenna gave a brief background of his education and work experience. He had been the Resident Engineer for the County during the early `80s and was replaced by Stan. B. "800 Inspections:" Daryl Hughes, Jack McKenna • Inspections include right -of -way, landscaping, irrigation, handicapped accessibility issues • What is the anticipated turn- around time? How many re- inspections are necessary? The process is under review to determine what inspections are needed and if efficiencies can be designed into the system. 161 1 gu7st4,moa Suggestion: Identify the top five site - related issues/areas of concern that necessitate re- inspections to help eliminate the problems and create more first -time approvals by developing an educational process (i.e., workshops) for applicants. VIII. Committee Member Comments: • Subject: Public Utilities and comments made at BCC Meeting DSAC was derided for "abandoning" the Utilities Subcommittee. Suggestion: Public Utilities will notify DSAC of its meeting schedule so DSAC's (Civil Engineer) members can attend the Utilities Subcommittee meetings on a rotating basis. Also suggested: appoint an Industry Representative to attend the meetings and report to DSAC. Discussion: • Public Utilities has an obligation to bring policy changes to DSAC for review o DSAC will make a recommendation to the BCC • Materials are to be provided in advance for review by Members o Not the day before or the day of the DSAC meeting • Utilities can present its changes to DSAC in an intelligible manner all of the technical specifications do not need to be outlined — for DSAC members to make a well - informed decision. o If Utilities recommends changes that are not currently implemented by other municipalities, justification must be presented (in lay -men's terms) why such changes are necessary and the costs for same. • Robert Mulhere will not attend the September 1St meeting. Next Meeting Dates: September 1, 2010 — 3:00 PM October 6, 2010 — 3:00 PM November 3, 2010 — 3:00 PM December 1, 2010 — 3:00 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 4:56 PM. 1611 97 q August 4, 2010 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Willie Varian, Vice Chairman The Minutes were improved by the Board/Committee on JAI 0 as presented �/ , or as amended 16 I 1 B7 R EC E NED Fiala Halos AUG 19 2010 Henning August 13, 2010 Coyle Board of County commissioners Coletta MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE PUBLIC UTILITIES/RPZ SUBC0M[MITTEE Naples, Florida, August 13, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee — Public Utilities /RPZ Subcommittee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN: William Varian, DSAC Melissa Ahern, CBIA Dave Aldrich, CBIA Nick Biondo, East Naples Fire District David Dunnavant, DSAC Joey Hatfield, Imperial Fire Protection Chris Mitchell, Waldrop Engineering (Non - Voting ) STAFF: Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities Joe Bellone, Manager — Utility Billing & Customer Service, Public Utilities Tom Wides, Director — Operations Support, Public Utilities Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office ALSO PRESENT: Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison James French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Mgmt. Joe Thomas, Manager — Water Distribution, Water Department Misc. Corres: 4 Date: Item #: Copies to: J 161 1 97 '4 August 13, 2010 I. Call to Order: William Varian, serving as Moderator, called the meeting to order at 9:08 AM and read the procedures to be followed during the meeting. II. Selection of Chairman: There was only one nomination. David Dunnavant nominated William Varian to serve as the Subcommittee's Chairman. Second by Dave Aldrich. Motion carried, S — "Yes " /1— "Abstention. " Mr. Varian abstained Chairman Varian officially opened the Subcommittee meeting. III. Approval of Agenda: Melissa Ahern moved to approve the Agenda as submitted A "Second" was made in support of the Motion. Carried unanimously, 6 -0. IV. Public Speakers: (None) (Nick Biondo arrived at 9:10 AM) VI. New Business: A. RPZ Requirements on Fire Services Nathan Beals stated one of the main concerns driving Utilities' push for installation of RPZs is the loss of pressure through the assembly versus the Double- Detector Check Assembly ( "DDCA "). In an effort to compromise, Utilities has suggested removing the language from the Standards currently restricting design to 40 psi. The AWWA ( "American Water Works Association ") M31 Guidelines will be substituted and the Engineer of Record will be responsible for determining fire flow pressure. (Copies of a document entitled, "Proposed Revision to Section 1— Design Criteria, " were distributed to the Subcommittee) Ed Riley stated: • NFPA -1 ( "National Fire Protection Association ") determines fire flow requirements in the State of Florida. • There is an existing fire flow requirement for single family residential at 750 gpm. (See: Appendix "H" which was adopted by Collier County.) • The 2009 Edition requires a 1,000 gpm if a structure is less than 5,000 square feet. If a structure is larger than 5,000 square feet, the commercial guideline requirements are to be followed. Mr. Riley stated the reference to AWWA -M31 is incorrect and NFPA -1 is to be followed because the minimum requirements are higher. NFPA -1's calculations are specific to the type of construction and the size of the structure. 16 11 B7 August 13, 2010 Mr. Beals conceded the reference could be changed after further review. The primary concession made by Public Utilities was to change the 40 psi requirement and allow the Engineer to make the determination regarding pressure. Ed Riley continued: • He is not opposed to changing 40 psi to a Standard. • Hydraulic modeling is to be based on a flow test or available water supply as a starting point and not on the "Kentucky" pipe that determines if a pipe is capable of flowing the type of water. o The Modeling Standard should state the starting point for modeling is to be based on an actual flow test to the main that is being tied to. David Dunnavant requested an explanation of the difference. The hydrant test is limited by the current Fire Code Ordinance to less than 50 psi. Mr. Riley stated there are different requirements for designing sprinkler systems. The fire flow required in mains and hydrants outside is calculated differently. He continued: The design for the hydrant system has no extrapolation. For example, if 1,000 gpm is needed for a building, the 1,000 gpm will be un- extrapolated out of the hydrant or to the closest hydrant to the building if hydrants have to be brought on site. The sprinkler system is extrapolated to 50 psi due to the requirements for water conservation at different times of the year. Pressure is dropped within the system during different times of the day — usually at night. The primary impact is to irrigation water. Another consideration is future use of the system. It is not standard practice to call Public Utilities in the evening asking to increase pressure to a fire sprinkler system at a certain location. It was tried in the past and didn't work. It was noted older systems in place (before 1998) may not be monitored. Because a building is undergoing renovations does not mean that the fire sprinkler system will also be updated for monitoring — the existing standards for renovations is the determining factor. Mr. Beals clarified water pressure does not fluctuate at the plant — it is maintained at a constant 90 psi. Tom Wides stated when the Water Department was running at near capacity a few years ago, the standard practice was to reduce pressure in the evening to maintain storage. Over the past 2 to 3 years, the pressure has been maintained at a constant level. (Chris Mitchell arrived at 9:16"..) Ed Riley stated test gauges were placed throughout the system several years ago to monitor pressure consistency and the results fluctuated wildly. All sprinkler systems are not located just at the plant. Theoretically, systems can be designed to have a one - pound safety margin (extrapolated) or a five -pound safety margin (not extrapolated). Nathan Beals stated he has access to NFPA -1 and will review it. 16 11 B 7 _<< August 13, 2010 Re: Boil Water Notices Mr. Beals stated in 2008 and 2009, one "Boil Water Notice" was issued each year due to a known or suspected actual cross - connection. With each main break, there is a potential for a back -flow. The purpose for installing RPZs is to stop back -flow from the customer's side of service and the requirement is being enforced on all new connections (fire and non -fire). Question: How long has the Double Detector Check Assembly been installed in Collier County's current system? Answer. Since approximately 1997 Question: Did any of the cross - connections occur on fire lines? Answer. The records are not available. He will research the issue. Joe Thomas stated Collier County instituted its back -flow prevention program in 1997 for all residential. The DDCA were begun in 2000. There are approximately 50 main breaks per year which require shut - downs, as well as scheduled shut -downs for maintenance. Even though a "Boil Water Notice" may not be issued, bacterial analysis of the water must be obtained for each shut -down. David Dunnavant outlined: • The Board of County Commissioners directed DSAC to determine by September 14`h whether the use of Double Detector Check valves currently in place in the County, as opposed to RPZs, poses an imminent Health/ Safety and Welfare threat to the residents of the County. • Public Utilities has based bulk of its operations primarily on AWWA guidelines. o AWWA states RPZs are only necessary if there are known contaminates in the system. Mr. Dunnavant questioned why, suddenly, there is an imminent Health/Safety/Welfare threat to Collier County that necessitates the installation of RPZs. He pointed out the costs for the installation will not be paid by Public Utilities but will be passed down to the Development Community. He further stated in today's current economic conditions, we are trying to find opportunities for people to do work in Collier County. Industry's concern is that this new requirement is a further impediment to the process. Question: Please explain what is so unique about Collier County's system that it needs RPZs when the bulk of the Country, as well as the AWWA, does not indicate that this is a standard or "best practice." Nathan Beals stated the intent is to protect public health by installing RPZs. Every time there is a main break, or work is done on the system, there is a potential for a 1611 B 4 August 13, 2010 back -flow situation. When that occurs, Public Utilities issues "Boil Water Notices" but it is not known each and every time there may be a cross - connection, and it is not known if everyone who may be affected received a `BWN." The intent of the RPZs is to protect everyone currently and in the future. No one else is doing this, but Utilities is trying to do what is right. uestion: Why now? Answer: For the same reason we require them on residential services — because we have very little control over what happens behind the meter. We have had several cases where instances have happened behind the meter and unauthorized connections were made to fire services -- if the RPZ was in place, it would stop that. Chris Mitchell noted the same protection would be in place with the Double- Detector Check valve. The possibility with an RPZ is zero or close to zero. With the Double - Detector Check valve, it is possible that the valve is not seeding but the back pressure on the system would have to be lower than pressure in the downstream side of the DDCA valve. Two valves would have to fail and the system pressure would have to be less. There may be more of a risk, but what is the risk? uestion: The Double- Detector Check Valves have been monitored and tested over time. How many times have those valves failed? Joe Thomas responded Utilities is not asking for an air -gap which is the best protection. The RPZ is the next step down from an air -gap. Nathan Beals stated all Double- Checks and RPZs are tested annually. The failure rate on private fire lines is not available because if a line is tested and repaired, Utilities is notified only of "passing" back -flow tests. Ed Riley stated all fire sprinkler systems that have an FDC connection (i.e., all commercial fire protection systems) are required to have an RPZ. Utilities is proposing that every sprinkler system will have an RPZ and include the 13 -D systems which would not originally have had an FDC. The number of additional systems that are being added is small. RPZs have been required on sprinkler systems all along with the exception of if it did not have a downstream cross - connection already on it already identified. He pointed out it is only in effect if the system is tied directly to their back -flow at the County's operated site — their main at the street. If a system has a combination meter at the street (combination fire and potable), there is no requirement for an RPZ for the sprinkler system within that community. He continued if the Subcommittee is examining Health/Safety and water quality issues, there are no water quality issue problems inside the community because it is not maintained by the County's water system. That point of demarcation has been established by the County. Very few places around the Country have a master meter assembly at a development entrance. In Collier County, a master meter assembly is 16 1: 1 B7 August 13, 2010 located at the property line -- everything that comes in is the responsibility of the development. This Ordinance does nothing for public safety within those communities because it does not affect them. It will not be utilized within that development. More and more of the developments in Collier County have been built that way with a developer developing a plot of land. In those cases, nothing will change. Chris Mitchell: In the case with a master combo meter up front, do those not typically have a Double Detector system? Ed Riley: On the sprinkler systems, a DDCA valve assembly is required and that won't change. The Ordinance does not require an RPZ on those. Chris Mitchell: There is the protection from back -flow from the system downstream? Ed Riley: Absolutely. In those situations, a DDCA valve assembly is acceptable. But when that sprinkler system is connected to the County's main, it is no longer acceptable and an RPZ is required at that location. In new developments, you will not see that by virtue of the way developments are structured in Collier County. Nathan Beals: The County's Ownership of the line stops at the master meter. If a developer chooses not to install a master meter but runs lines through the development and puts Utility easements over the lines, they can be conveyed to Utilities if all requirements are met. South Florida's gated communities are unique. If there is a master meter, the County will not take ownership of the lines. Developers have an option. Chris Mitchell: It is more difficult because the County requires a 60 -foot right -of- way for subdivisions to meet the standard of the technical specifications in the Utilities Manual. In response to a question, Ed Riley confirmed all commercial fire sprinkler systems today that are connected directly to the County's back -flow are required to have an RPZ installed. If a master meter (combination or fire meter) is on site and feeds all the hydrants in the buildings, a Double -Check valve assembly is acceptable and you can install an FDC off that. If you connect directly off a main which the County owns, then an RPZ must be installed. Discussion ensued concerning FDC, definitions, separation of fire lines, and cross - connections. The Florida Administrative Code approved five devices and one is the Double- Detector Check Assembly valve. It was noted that a Double -Check is accepted and used in the majority of properties nationwide that have fire lines on them. Ed Riley stated the City of Ft. Myers has stayed with the DDCA but Collier County elected to adopt a higher standard. The proposed change for back -flow affects very minimally what is already being done. It will have minimal impact. He stated he does not agree with the implication that it is a Health/Safety/Welfare issue. If it were such an issue, the County should eliminate the master meter assemblies at property lines and take ownership of the lines throughout a development. 1611 B7 -1 August 13, 2010 Question: What is the percentage, or actual number, of applications have come through that have a situation where there is a single fire line lead -in that would have the ability to use a Double Check? Are there any? Ed Riley stated it could be done if the single family aspect was re- addressed and didn't require an FDC connection on it. The Fire Code Office requires an FDC connection on 13 -D systems for consistency of fire sprinkler protection. Joey Hatfield noted sprinkler systems for single - family homes are designed to be affordable. One of the major arguments, nationwide, is that sprinkler systems cost too much and adding reduced pressure back - flows/fire department connections keeps driving the cost up. The issue is being scrutinized in relation to the cost of single - family home fire sprinkler systems. If you add a reduced pressure back -flow, the pipe size is increased. If a fire department connection is added, the cost is increased. He stated: We, as an Industry, are trying very hard to make these affordable. If you put a very simple sprinkler system into a home, a network of piping connected to a sprinkler system will save people's lives. It is important that the Subcommittee members understand what the implications are and why it is important. Chairman Varian asked what the questions the BCC directed DSAC to answer were. David Dunnavant stated one question was to determine the Health/Safety /Welfare aspect of the RPZs. Is the issue truly a Healtb/Safety/Welfare issue? Is installing RPZs necessary for the County? Mr. Dunnavant expressed his concern regarding how the Subcommittee is going to achieve agreement on the issue. Public Utilities brought up the water supply and contamination issue. The Fire Code Office stated it does not seem to be that dangerous. Chairman Varian asked, from a Health/Safety/Welfare point of view, how many fire lines are not protected. Nathan Beals stated there are approximately 1,000 fire services in the system and a little more than half currently have RPZs installed. While the remaining half have DDCAs or nothing. Chairman Varian clarified the 500 lines without RPZs will not be affected by any decisions made concerning the Ordinance -- changes will be implemented from this point forward. He added from a business viewpoint, any additional costs could kill a project. Do we want Collier County to become one of those places where no one wants to work? He confirmed the Subcommittee will not oppose a true Health/Safety/ Welfare issue. Mr. Beals stated Utilities would like to require retrofits on the DDCAs but cannot because they are designed close to the system and adding 5 psi additional pressure of an RPZ would be a detriment to the system. When a system is completely replaced and redesigned, installing RPZs will be required based on 40 psi. Chairman Varian directed a question to Mr. Riley asking if there were triggers in the Florida Fire Prevention Code? Ed Riley replied there might be some situations, i.e., change of occupancy, that could require altering the design of a sprinkler system. Chapter 43 is very restrictive 1611 97 `4 August 13, 2010 concerning the use of new requirements for existing buildings. Certain benchmarks must be reached before it triggers. Due to economics, the Building Code has been changed to reflect the current climate. Tom Wides commented Nathan Beals presented research to minimize the impact of a pressure drop, which is a major component of cost increases — larger pipes due to the pressure loss. He referred to an email from George Hermanson that may be a fair assessment of the device, but not the downstream design. Nathan Beals stated the intent was to allow the pressure to be tested at the system and the majority of the time, it will be higher than 40 psi. Ed Riley stated the M31 Guidelines do not change design standards for the sprinkler system past the back flow. You must still extrapolate the flow test to 50 psi which is ten pounds more than what was the minimum. The site hydrants may benefit from the other process, but the actual sprinkler design will not. Joey Hatfield: What has not yet been discussed is that our world is 50 psi and that's all we have to work with. The pressure loss is very important — when it is lost, pipe sizes start going up. That is a cost that cannot be quantified unless you actually calculate a building to determine what the difference is in the pressure loss — it causes branch line and main piping to go up in size inside the building. Tom Wides stated if you are required to meet 50 psi, you will size your pipes internally to meet that. Ed Riley stated you are not required to meet 50 psi, you must meet the design pressure from the system. You may have to have 18 gpm and 10 psi at the farthest end and you will calculate up to 1,500 square feet or even up to 3,000 square feet depending on the hazard classification of all those heads flowing — you are calculating the water flow requirements and the more it is, the bigger the pipe size is needed. As you increase pressure, there is an increase in friction loss. Joey Hatfield: In simplified terms, if you begin at the most remote sprinkler in the system and at that point, the calculations begin at 7 psi — so we are already at 43 when we start. Friction loss calculations are done back through the system and elevation losses are taken into consideration — all of that is calculated back out to the street where we take the pressure loss to the back -flow device and to the City connection. In the majority of cases, we lose 10 or 11 psi from the beginning. The first sprinkler head is calculated with a 10 — 11 pound starting head pressure, so we're under 40 at the start. Ed Riley stated you must have a residual of 20 at the end. You only have 30 pounds to work with and that's going through a back -flow assembly which can have 12 to 15 psi friction loss. It's not easy to design systems to give you a lot of pressure loss. He continued he would like to get away from the 50 psi but no one is comfortable enough with the design system. A complete Modeling of the system was discussed to show what it was capable of 14 16 1,L07 010 He confirmed the 50 psi starts at the connection main — at the supply side of the back flow. Dave Aldrich requested the figures for the cost of adding in the RPZs to the system. These costs will impact any new businesses coming into Collier County. He stated the goal for Utilities is to install meters. The bottom line is to begin metering every commercial building in Collier County. He is not convinced there is a Health/Safety/Welfare issue from everything that has been presented — even from Utilities — and he asked what does Utilities want? Joe Thomas stated it started out as a view of accommodating and being able to understand the cost of our production in the utilization of our water. If, in fact, we have cross- connection situations — which we've experienced — somebody is not paying, and we're running the risk of putting irrigation quality (reclaimed) water into a potable system. We've seen that in Pelican Bay. Comments: "You're digging a hole .... that was created ...." David Dunnavant stated Pelican Bay was a terrible example. Utilities changed the use of that line and didn't find all of the irrigation connections. Now Utilities claims it is a County -wide problem. That's how this whole thing started. Mr. Thomas countered whoever uses the water should pay for it. David Dunnavant reiterated that was exactly the point. Utilities came in initially with a revenue issue. When they went before the BCC, it became a Health/Safety/Welfare issue. That's the problem. There has been a lot of misgiving in that change. Nathan Beals: Everything that was brought to us was questioned — the meter, why the meter, who approved the meter. Before the meter was required, we changed the requirement to RPZs. It was at the March DSAC meeting that Ed brought up that the issue isn't the meters, it's the RPZs. We didn't really discuss the RPZs, we went back to the meters. Meters are not a Health/Safety/Welfare issue — the back flow is. The back flow was thrown in during the discussions about meters. The meter report only talks about the meters. Utilities hasn't tried to change the reasoning on back flows versus meters. Meters have been accounting for "he who benefits, pays." Back flow is Health/Safety/Welfare. They are different subjects. Ed Riley: What I said at that [DSAC] meeting was -- from a Fire standpoint and calculation issue, the meter is less of a problem because it's one to three pounds of friction loss. The RPZ is five to seven pounds of additional friction loss. In our [Fire Office] mind, from Plan Review and the installation of systems, a line size meter is less of an impact on the system than an RPZ. Not that it wasn't a concern, but the bigger concern — when you combine them — is 8 psi or better and that it would have a higher impact on the system itself. Of the two, the meter has less impact on the system. Nathan Beals concurred that Ed said the larger issue was the RPZ. Chairman Varian noted when Paul [Mattausch] was at the DSAC meeting, one of his concerns was 5% loss system -wide. David Dunnavant stated Utilities had 10 -12 %. They could account for half of it because of testing and breaks but they had additional loss they couldn't determine. 162 B7 August 13, 2010 Could it be leakage? Could it be low flow - through meters? It could be lots of things that aren't going to be captured by putting a meter on a fire line and charging every business in this County for it. [ Excerpt from the March 3'd DSAC Minutes: "He [Paul Mattausch] further stated approximately 10% of the water produced is not billed. • Approximately 5% can be identified (water main breaks, hydrant flushing programs, fighting fires, etc.) • In 2005, the amount of water lost in the system was examined and was determined to be 13 %. • Solution: to ensure all services are metered to track unbilled usage. • In January, 2009 the Utility Standards Committee revised the Standards (placing meters on dedicated fire services), posted them on the website, and were approved by the BCC in September, 2009. • If a building is substantially changed, the meters will be retrofit to comply with the Ordinance." ] Chairman Varian noted he remembered the 5% from the March DSAC meeting and the Industry standard was approximately 10 to 12% - -- Collier County is pretty good for lost water as compared to the Industry. Water loss is a revenue issue. Forward to the BCC's July meeting — now it's a Health/Safety/Welfare issue. Nathan Beals reiterated they are separate items — the meter and the RP. At the BCC's July meeting, we were only asking to have the RP rescinded because those two items were put together as an Administrative Stay. We knew we would come back to continue to discuss the fire metering requirements. David Dunnavant: The point is -- at neither of Mr. Mattausch's appearances at DSAC, did he ever mention Health/Safety/Welfare as being an issue in RPZ or metering or in any combination. He mentioned it was the 5% revenue loss. Chairman Varian: The Industry's concern is the revenue. Nathan Beals: The RP has nothing to do with revenue — it's been Health/Safety/ Welfare. Melissa Ahern concurred revenue will be affected because there will be less building. It was noted increases in Impact Fees have further discouraged people from building. David Dunnavant: What lines are we actually discussing for RPZs? Commercial buildings already have RPZs in place. Multi - families do or do not? Ed Riley: Some multi - families do and some do not. It depends on where they are connected to the system. David Dunnavant: If there is a master meter out front, there is an RPZ at some location. Everything into a community right now — for multi - family or commercial — has RPZs. So are we discussing single family which really doesn't have fire service anyway? Joey Hatfield: It's coming — it's already been adopted in the NFPA Standards. It was repealed -- Florida decided legislatively to not include it in their Standard this year. Single family homes will be required to have sprinklers in this country. The cost will continue to push affordable fire sprinkler systems out of what they were intended to be. 10 161 87 August 13, 2010 Comment: Up until 2008, a Double Detector Check Assembly valve could be put on a separate fire system into a commercial. You could also run a separate fire system for multi - family using the DDCA. David Dunnavant: That's the point. That's the 2008. That's the change we missed. That's what we're asking about - -- why are we requiring RPZs on commercial? Comment: Some of them did not make their way to the Review because they are shown in a different part of the Fire Review Plan — not on the SDP — that's how some of them got by with only having DDCAs as opposed to RPZs which they were supposed to have by note of the Ordinance which states any connections downstream of the device. Joe Thomas: We quickly said, "It's a revenue issue." What Nathan has tried to do is recognize that we did look at this from a water loss perspective. No argument. But we separated that discussion. We are going to come back to discuss metering the water loss. What we simply are trying to do is get back to where we were on the RPZs prior to the last Board meeting in July. Dave Aldrich: When we had inquired regarding the meters — back in the history of the RPZs — the issue was always about water loss. The first I heard about Health/Safety Welfare was here. Everyone is in agreement -- if someone is "stealing" water, make it a $25,000 fine. It is a felony — continue to bump it up and make an example. If you continue to increase the cost of buildings right now with Impact fees and every single cost, you might as well shut down. When we start the history of what our water bills have been since 2003, they have gone up for the same amount of usage. The issue has to be defined. What are you trying to fight or promote? At every meeting, there is a new issue. Utilities is trying to do everything it can to get an RPZ in place and get a meter. Mr. Aldrich continued: He would like to see the rates that have been discussed published in the newspaper and have members of the Chamber of Commerce and the owners of buildings and businesses who are going to increase rents to pay Utilities' costs — would like to have some feedback from them. We were told this had been vetted in the past, but then we found out the Subcommittee was disbanded before the vetting could occur. It was a water loss issue — now it's Health/Safety/Welfare. It's going to be another issue next time. You need to have an RPZ to put a meter on there. Once again, Utilities pushed it through as a Consent Agenda Item - -- we did not receive any calls or notification. We are always dealing with a dark horse here. If Utilities doesn't start to lay everything out on the table and cleaning up these arguments to figure out how to go forward in Collier County — and not trying to increase costs on these buildings so people can make a living here — the change must stop. We have to figure out how to move this thing forward. If we have an RPZ issue, then we also have a Double -Check Valve issue. I want to hear — does the Double -Check Valve work? David Dunnavant stated it seems to be working throughout the country. And we have no instance of it failing here. Joey Hatfield: Have there been any documented cases of failures of Double- Detector Check Assembly valves or systems that don't have Check valves in place at all endangering public health? Nathan Beals: On a private system, the owners pay to have it tested annually. If it fails, they fix it and Utilities doesn't know if it failed. On our system, we have 1611F August 13, 2010 Double - Checks still in some locations on single - family homes that we own and maintain. We've gone back and found that they've failed. Joey Hatfield: That's not the question that I asked. Nathan Beals: You're asking if Double- Checks have failed and if we have a record of them — only of our system. We don't have private fire system records of what has failed because they only send us what has passed. Joey Hatfield: The question was has the absence of — or the failure of — a Check valve ever endangered public health. Nathan Beals: We don't know. Joey Hatfield: There you go. Joe Thomas: Every time you have back -flow from a residence — from a point of delivery go back into the system, you have the potential for endangering public health. There are a thousand different mains by which water can be brought into the system. Joey Hatfield: What are those things? What is the great fear there? Joe Thomas: You stated, in the future, that they are going to require fire sprinkler systems on single - family residence. Why is that? Joey Hatfield: Because people die in single family home fires. Joe Thomas: That is going to cause an impact -- a cost impact to the building industry. You also stated a fire department connection is required — and it's always been that way? Ed Riley responded as far as he knew, it has. The only systems that didn't were 13 -D and they haven't been around that long. (1984 - ?) Joe Thomas: Most major outbreaks of diseases that are reported have been traced back to back -flow. Once again, we can't control what happens on the customer's side — that's why we're requiring the device. We are not requiring the most expensive one but the most beneficial one. That's the point. David Dunnavant: Can the Subcommittee agree that AWWA, which most Utilities use as the backbone of most of their Standards, indicates that in recommended back - flow prevention, that the only time RPZs are necessarily required or requested is with the presence of known contaminants? I am trying to understand if we have any indication of known contaminants. But is that not what AWWA states? Joe Thomas: Yes. Collier County's standards and its Ordinance supersede even FDEP requirements. In certain instances, it is necessary. We [Utilities] are a business, too. For our Business Practices, and to make repairs, and to maintain the system, and provide water that is safe for the public, there are certain things that we have to require that supersede others. Joey Hatfield: Those certain instances where chemicals or something hazardous is present — an example would be a fire sprinkler system where you have antifreeze in the system for freeze protection. That would, without question, require an RPZ. Those systems that have something different, outside of the norm, which is a water -based fire protection system, should have RPZs. Yet the Industry Standard (M -14) tells us that a Double- Detector Check Assembly valve is an acceptable back -flow prevention device. The root issue here is that Collier County wants something better — a Cadillac versus a Chevy. Tom Wides: We are not requiring the air -gap. He continued: In 1993 or `94, after Hurricane Andrew, the Building Codes were changed to make sure that everyone's home was hurricane proof. Things change. In 12 16 11 B7 August 13, 2010 order to keep up — to try to continually make your system better and safe for your public and your customers, you have to be able to change as technology grows. Joey Hatfield: What was changed? Joe Thomas: We have seen situations where we have cross- connections on the other side of the meter. Joey Hatfield: Can we get some real documentation of that? We just keep hearing about those, but we've never received one — other than Pelican Bay — real example. Joe Thomas: We've found places where there have been — Autumn Woods. Joey Hatfield: They may have been found, but we've never received any real documentation. We keep talking about these mythical places and cross - connections, but we have not received anything that tells us what has really happened. But we don't know. We're just chasing our tails — chasing this mythical creature. Tom Wides: I hear Joey asking for specific examples. Can we provide those specific examples for the next meeting? That's a fair request. James French: There is risk assessment analysis out there by Flash Technologies as well as a number of private engineering groups that talk about the benefits of hardening homes to make them hurricane proof. There is a risk assessment analysis that exists —just like there probably is one for National Fire Prevention data that talks about single - family homes and the reason why you would want to irrigate them for fire protection. I think what the Subcommittee is looking for is some risk assessment numbers. Is the Community at risk? What is the measurement? And what can Utilities bring to the Subcommittee? Nathan Beals: A starting point would be the "Boil Water Notices" information — the Notices were issued to ensure that water quality is maintained. But if we have back - flow protection, we may be able to minimize more of those `BWN." David Dunnavant: The `BWN" occur from main breaks ... Nathan Beals:.. and a main break causes a back -flow ... David Dunnavant:.. from domestic issues — not from fire lines. Nathan Beals: But if a fire line has a failed Double- Detector Check — we don't know if it failed or for how long it failed. We don't know if it caused a back flow from a fire line or from a single - family home or a commercial industry. But when a main break happens, we lose pressure and it causes a back -flow situation. The back -flow sucks water out of someone's house. We get the main break fixed and it pumps it down stream to the next house, and the next, etc. That's what Utilities is trying to stop. A main break can cause those situations. Ed Riley: Single -check valves, Double- Detector Check Assembly valves and RPZs can all fail. The known failure on an RPZ is the springs. An air -gap can probably fail under some conditions, too. There is nothing that is foolproof. There has to be an acceptable level of risk. There are different Models out there to determine what that might be. I think what we're trying to do here is going above what the Community may determine to be an acceptable level of risk based on the costs associated with it — if they really knew what those costs were. If owners wanted to sprinkler their homes, there are benefits that go beyond just sprinklering the home. If you sprinkler anything, you reduce the required fire flow to that area. You reduce the impact on your system, you reduce the requirements for main sizes. It's a green technology that uses less water when you have a fire. We have all these reduced impacts on water systems by putting sprinkler systems in, yet we are looking to penalize people for putting them in. 13 1611 B7 h August 13, 2010 You're saying users are going to pay for what they use. But they're not using — it is sitting static. The people who have buildings without fire sprinkler systems are not paying extra for the static water out there in the mains that's at a higher rate because they need more water because it's a non - sprinkler building. That's not being calculated. That's not a fair assessment across the board. You talk about fees being collected from the users. Do you collect for the use of water for a flow tests? Do you perform annual testing on your hydrants? Who pays for that water? There is a lot of usage of water that is not collecting any revenue which is in direct conflict of what Utilities put out as not being able to give anyone "free" water. We're hitting a part of it but we're not hitting all of it. Unless you hit all of it — that's one issue. Then the issue of Public Safety — what Utilities wants implemented does not affect all residents. It only affects those residents who connect directly to your water supply. People within a community are not being protected. It's not an even across the board type of implementation for everybody within the County. David Dunnavant: I think we did agree with what the AWWA states. But Collier County Utilities wants to go with a more safe system than AWWA and the balance of the nation. There is a cost associated with that. It is incumbent upon the Subcommittee to figure out what that cost is, and try to determine whether the current system in place has created health issues for the County's residents. We really have not had known injuries associated with it. Give the BCC that information, and ask the Board if they want to add the costs at this time on a system that, to date, hasn't caused injuries to their citizens. He continued: One other thing I want to ask about the RPZ — it has come to my attention that, perhaps, when you hook onto the fire department connection, it is not just the cost of the RPZ but an additional Detector Check also that — if you hook onto the fire department connection and go through the RPZ, it will dump water as opposed to getting it all to the top of the building without an additional Detector Check. Ed Riley stated it is a valid point because an RPZ functions differently than a DDCA valve. David Dunnavant: We have two more meetings to refine how we feel about safety. I have a feeling that on September 10 (the next BCC meeting), Utilities will state one issue on why they feel they need RPZs — we have found out we have them basically now in commercial. Now we have to get to the meters. We should get some things on the table about meters, figure out if there's some homework to be done and come back there. Nathan Beals: (directed to Mr. Aldrich) Public Utilities has a monthly Discussion Group. Whenever changes to the Standards are discussed in the Discussion Group, I will bring that information — a Public Utilities Update — to DSAC so it can be discussed again at the next meeting. I don't want to have a situation where it was interpreted as being "snuck under the radar." We are trying to move forward, we don't necessarily want to create a Subcommittee to tie up someone from DSAC but the intent is to continue to bring updates to DSAC on an on -going basis from now on. David Dunnavant stated at the next DSAC meeting, he will request that Chairman Varian. on behalf of DSAC, send a letter to the Commissioners. This Fire Meter 14 1611 87 August 13, 2010 Report tossed DSAC under the bus for being apathetic and for not participating in the Utilities' Subcommittee for Standards. We will present a letter on why DSAC discontinued its participation in the Subcommittee. It looked as if DSAC just didn't give a damn and that's just not the case. The Subcommittee will receive a copy. Nathan Beals confirmed it was not brought to DSAC. He did not realize he should have brought it to DSAC — he was not directed to do so — but it will not happen in the future. Dave Aldrich: There was an issue that came up regarding double flushing — one by Utilities and one by Fire -- in the course of a year. Comment: The issue is about hydrants and the Fire Department doing annual testing of the fire hydrants and that Utilities was also flushing the hydrants annually. David Aldrich: Is there any way for that to be combined into one flush per year? Joe Thomas: There is a difference between the flushing of hydrants and the annual maintenance of the hydrants that the individual Fire Districts have. We currently maintain the hydrants in the North Naples and the Golden Gate Fire Districts. Certain maintenance is required to be done annually on those hydrants. There are also four flushes that we are required to do throughout the course of the year by FDEP. We have a flushing program that addresses all of those. It only includes hydrants that are in the right -of -way. We have nothing to do with private hydrants. We provide information to all of the Fire Districts. Comment: There is an issue of who owns the North Naples hydrants. There was some double flushing with the actual maintenance work. The Water /Sewer District now owns the hydrants in North Naples and we are working with North Naples to avoid duplicating the same work. There still are some ownership issues to be resolved. Additional comments were made concerning 78 locations built -out communities within Collier County where flushing devices were installed and are being monitored on a daily basis. B. Line -Size Water Meter Requirement David Dunnavant stated meters are not a big friction loss. He asked if meters could be installed on a system with a Double- Detector Check Assembly — an in -line meter. Does it have to be an RPZ? He noted the website lists domestic water rates. What are the charges for Fire? Nathan Beals stated (in the read -ahead packet provided to the Subcommittee) Schedule 1 from the Building Ordinance clarifies usage. After consumption reaches 5,000 gallons in one month or in any one billing period, it is "deemed" to be providing domestic and charged as a standard connection. Question: Are they considered as a user of domestic water for only that period or for every month going forward? Answer. Only in the month where there is consumption. Question: Is there a base fee for a fire line? Answer. There is an availability charge but only if there is consumption. 15 16(1 87 August 13, 2010 Question: What is "consumption ?" Answer: 5,000 gallons Question: If I am a user who has a fire pump on my system and I am required to test it annually and the test is going to take 15,000 gallons — I would have to pay an availability charge for that month, as well as the fee for the water? Answer: Yes, that's the way the Ordinance reads today. If it is recorded on the meter. If it has a detector meter, Utilities will not record anything higher than 3 gallons per minute. When the flow test is conducted, Utilities may only see the first 10 gallons. After that, the check valves are opened up and Utilities does not read it. Question: So this really is a revenue issue? Answer: We're accounting for water used. Question: So this really is a revenue issue? Answer: Yes, it is a revenue issue. Those who are using it are paying for it. To the extent that there is no meter, other than a Detector Check, you are still not paying for the entire use. Question: Say that again. Answer: To the extent that you have nothing more than a Detector Check – if you're flushing 15,000 gallons – Utilities is not measuring 15,000 gallons as it stands today. Question: We're talking about putting in a several- thousand - dollar device on 99% of the fire sprinkler systems to measure the use of $8.00 to $12.00 a year in water use. The payback for a device like that is – how many years? It doesn't make sense. Chairman Varian stated there is probably going to be a connection charge. Will an Impact Fee be charged for that? As we start adding all of those up, what does that meter cost? The meters will be large – six, eight, ten inches? What are the connection charges? What are the Impact Fee charges? What is the total cost? Question: If this is a new meter, is there a tapping charge? Answer: There is no tapping charge because it is installed by a contractor. It also depends on the meter size and the application. Question: Are there Impact Fees for dedicated fire services? Answer: No, there are no Impact Fees related to dedicated fire services There is the monthly consumption which will be billed through regular billing cycles – if there is consumption. Chairman Varian asked if there is minimal or low consumption, is there a yearly charge for the meter? Answer: As it stands today, no. Utilities is saying, "as it stands today," because we do not have meters. We have no plans for Impact Fees. And in terms of any other charges, you will be paying for the actual use. In terms of other things that might be tacked on, none of that would be approved without the same kind of vetting that we're doing today and through the Board of County Commissioners. Question: What is the justification for putting meters on fire lines that use three to four to five hundred or a thousand gallons a year? Answer: Five hundred thousand gallons a year times - -- 16 16 11 87 August 13, 2010 Question: No, five hundred or a thousand gallons a year. Answer: Different property managers have given different numbers as far as how often their systems are tested and how often they run the systems — anywhere from weekly, to quarterly, to semi - annually, to annually. They all have different figures and different plans for the different systems. We don't know. It can add up to be quite a lot. Most of those systems don't have re- circulating water — a lot of them just flush it out. We don't know the actual usage of how much water is going through and being used annually. Comment: The majority of systems (95 — 98 %) are single, wet fire sprinkler systems that don't have fire pumps attached to them. In that situation, they are required to be tested quarterly. That's a main -drain test, opening it and taking a visual reading of the gauge and the residual pressure on the gauge, and closing the valve. The test will last two minutes. If the gauge is not reading properly, it can be replaced. Another scenario is a business with a fire pump. In that situation, the pump is required to be run weekly and it is also required to be flow - tested annually. It is required to produce 1,000 gallons per minute plus an additional 50 %, so it is tested at 150% of capacity. It could be a substantial number of gallons on a system like that — but it's once a year. Some of them are designed to re- circulate and some of them just go out onto the ground through a relief valve. Nathan Beals: When there is more than 15,000 gallons of usage, there is also the availability charge which is $1,200 for an eight inch. David Dunnavant: It is $1,100 for an eight inch. Nathan Beals: The amount is $1,112.00 Comment: We have a guy who has installed a $50,000 fire pump on his building and Utilities is going to penalize him for having a good operating system. If you take the flip side of that same property, without a fire pump, we're talking about an enormous amount more of water should an event happen at that property. If you don't have the luxury of a fire pump in place, the Fire Department will use considerably more water there. With a fire pump, is there even going to be enough usage to measure? When you talk about a building that has a single fire sprinkler system, the same situation applies. The Fire Department responding to a building without a sprinkler system is going to use considerably more water than one that does. This is the grey area - -- this makes no sense. We're trying to provide a fire safe community by installing fire sprinklers which will require less water from the system than a community without fire sprinklers. The Subcommittee does not understand why this is happening when we're trying to make it better and less demanding overall on Utilities' system. Chairman Varian: Would it be beneficial to everyone if it were a yearly fee to somebody who owned a fire sprinkler system — and not have to put the meters and everything else in? From a business point of view, think of "return on investment." Would that be a way around installing a meter? Maybe it could be rated based on the system. I am trying to find medium ground here. Ed Riley: Personally, I don't see why there should be an availability charge — even if a fire pump used five or six thousand gallons. That is discriminatory. You still have to have 17 1611 B7 August 13, 2010 the availability of fire protection water for every building in the County. Everyone that your system protects. Nobody else is paying that — even though their required fire flow could be much higher than the required fire flow for that building. Because they tested their pump as required, Utilities is going to penalize them with an availability fee. If there was a charge for just the amount of water used — you can calculate the amount of water for any type of average test — the amount of water that goes in — that's known based on the Code requirement — you could estimate the number of gallons plus 10% and have an annual fee for the water usage of that test. That would be substantially less than putting a $10 to $15,000 meter on it. If you put meters on every system, and the only ones that will go over 5,000 gallons are the buildings with fire pumps — less than 5% of the total. 95% will put meters on at this exaggerated price and Utilities will not get a dime out of them because they will not trigger the 5,000 gallons per month. There is no value to it. Comment: Or it would be scenario in a strip mall — you're talking about bringing business to Collier County — the guy that owns that strip mall has 15 build -outs going on — in the course of a month, you're draining the system and filling it daily to do interior renovations. He now hits the threshold of 5,000 gallons — he's brining business to Collier County and Utilities is going to penalize that land owner for that? It doesn't make sense. Joe Bellone: We're talking about the current rate structure — the way the structure works — there are two charges normally on a water bill. There is a consumption charge that is meant to cover the cost of the water production while the availability charge is meant to cover the other costs associated with distributing water throughout Collier County. The availability charge covers the fixed costs while the consumption charge covers the variable costs depending on how much water has to be produced. There are two elements built into the rate structure. Ed Riley: The problem is we are only addressing the fire requirements for a specific group of people — those who have fire sprinkler systems. They are the only ones who will be penalized or pay an availability charge when they meet a threshold. The County has a responsibility to provide fire protection water for every building whether there is a fire protection system or not. If you are going to do a fire availability charge, you need to assess the charge against every ratepayer in the County — single family included. It needs to be spread to all users or you don't charge an availability fee for the fire portion, but do a charge for the actual or estimated usage. Make it an annual fee. Joe Bellone: One of the alternative discussed, if we were to go to meters on all fire systems, we were discussing a different rate structure where it might be one charge per year for availability to maintain the lines and a consumption charge for use — rather than that size availability fee every month. Ed Riley: You are still taking one class of user — a sprinkler system — for fire protection availability fees. Every building has a fire protection availability requirement. If building without a sprinkler system still has to provide a certain level of fire protection water. That equation is for every building. If a sprinkler system is installed, there is a 75% reduction in the fire flow requirement. Yet they are being charged for requiring only 25% and they're being charged an additional fee for fire protection water. That's discriminatory and that's where you're going to get nailed. 18 1611 B7 August 13, 2010 David Dunnavant: This started as a revenue issue — we heard that 5% amount — and there are lots of reasons why the system is not accounting for all of the water that moves through it. It's safe to say the fire lines are not the big culprit. It seems as if we're looking to the fire lines as a way to recover a lot of those costs without telling people, "We need to raise your bill." You're right — we are going toward a limited group. We have a system where every building gets fire protection — but to assess the people who actually have fire equipment in place to make the fire protection more efficient. It's just not ringing true. Joe Thomas: The utility has to recover its costs — the rate structure is built so that all of the costs are recovered from all of the customers. If someone lives in a building with a sprinkler system, they have the benefit of that. But someone living in a non - sprinkler building, without the benefit, is also paying for those costs. Ed Riley: No — they're not. There are two houses, side by side, one with a sprinkler and one without. The house without the sprinkler is receiving four times the value as the house with the sprinkler system. With a sprinkler system, the requirement will be less than 100 gallons per minute to fight a fire. You will use a lot more water in a building without a sprinkler system. Yet you are penalizing the individual with the sprinkler because he spent more money to put a fire protection system into his home, which lessens the impact of your Utility. The homeowner next door who would use more water in the same fire situation will pay nothing extra. If you're going to do a standby — a fire standby fee — and assess a fee for fire protection, it needs to be across the board. Joe Thomas: We're talking about all the other testing that goes along with that — weekly or monthly ... Ed Riley: And I said if you want to take a fee structure associated with the use of that water and estimate it by the type of system — you can assess the amount of water needed to do an annual test on that system. Assess them an annual fee based on your water structure. That would not be a big deal because it's actual water usage, Joe Thomas: Consumption of water to fight an actual fire was never contemplated to be charged. Ed Riley: You are talking about a water availability fee. The water is available out in the main for everybody. David Dunnavant: The month we have a fire, we won't get a bill? Every time we flow over 5,000 gallons we are charged the monthly service fee and the usage. How is that siphoned out? You can't do it! Chairman Varian: Okay — on Monday, the 15a', Joey flushes a fire pump system and uses 5,000 gallons. On Wednesday, Nick responds to a fire — fire sprinklers are going — 10,000 gallons more used. For that month, Joey's owner doesn't get a bill? (Multi conversations — voices talking over each other) 19 1611 B7 August 13, 2010 Joe Thomas: You're splitting hairs pretty thin – how many fires are there annually in the District? Nick Biondo: We just had two on Monday night and the Gate had one on Sunday night, and they were non - sprinkler. We dumped a ton of water. Joe Thomas: I'm sure you put it on your Water Loss Report to me. Additionally, there's also the incentive of repairing things in a timely manner and being cautious with the use of the water as well. Recently, there was an entity that had a leak for two months, but there was no incentive because the leak didn't show on the meter as much as it actually should have. We found this out after the fact. David Dunnavant: Go after them – call Code Enforcement ... Joe Thomas: We have no means to accurate judge how much water ... David Dunnavant: Are you going to charge everybody else in the County due to a situation like that? You are looking for ways to go after other people to compensate for that loss. Joe Thomas: No, we're looking - -- if that line had been properly metered, we would have been able to do that. Nathan Beals: One of the thoughts when we were looking at the requirement for meters on fire lines was that the fire line connections to our system are the only connections that are un- metered. Every other connection that's on our system is metered that we know of. We need to look closely at this requirement and come back with some different ideas for next Thursday. David Dunnavant: What we're saying is that loss in your system is not coming from the fire lines. At the next meeting, we can start talking about the other ways that water comes out of your system that is unaccounted for — let's just try to figure out what we're going to prepare and discuss for the next meeting. Joey Hatfield: I have two questions. What is the dollar value for this unaccounted for loss in your system – the total unaccounted for loss? The second – is Collier County Utilities operating at a budget deficit? David Dunnavant: That's been stated before. I've seen $150,000 per percent to - -- $900,000 to $1.2M of lost water production costs. It was represented that each percent was worth about $160,000 - -- so about $800,000. Comment: We have a water loss book we can bring to the next meeting. Chairman Varian: As a Subcommittee, is there anything that we need to bring – what is our next Agenda going to be – what are the topics for our next meeting? We are going to expand on these two items a bit more. You can email potential agenda items to Judy. 20 1611 g7 August 13, 2010 Judy Puig: Email them to me. The meeting is next Thursday at 9:00 AM. Chairman Varian: If Judy can get everything together — at least we will have Wednesday to read for next Thursday's meeting. David Dunnavant: I apologize — I will not be able to attend. Nathan Beals: Paul Mattausch will attend. VIII. Committee Member Comments: (None) Next Meetiny, Dates: August 19, 2010 — 9:00 AM August 27, 2010 — 3:00 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 11:05 AM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE UTILITIES/RPZ SUBCOMMITTEE c William Varian, Subcommittee Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board/Co ttee on as presented , or as amended 21 RECEIVED Fiala SEP 0 2 2010 H Henni nnin bo6id „+ r00iila commissioners Coyle Coletta 161 �1 B7 �. August 19, 2010 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE PUBLIC UTILITIES/RPZ SUBCOMMITTEE Naples, Florida, August 19, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee — Public Utilities/RPZ Subcommittee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN: William Varian, DSAC Melissa Ahern, CBIA David Aldrich, CBIA Nick Biondo, East Naples Fire District David Dunnavant, DSAC Joey Hatfield, Imperial Fire Protection George Hermanson, DSAC Chris Mitchell, Waldrop Engineering Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office (Non - Voting) STAFF: Paul Mattausch, Director, Water Department. Nathan Beals, Associate Project Manager — Public Utilities Joe Bellone, Manager — Utility Billing & Customer Service, Public Utilities (Absent) Tom Wides, Director — Operations Support, Public Utilities (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Judy Puig, Operations Analyst Staff Liaison Misc. Comas: Date: Item #: C -lies !o: 16 1 i B7 August 19, 2010 I. Call to Order: Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 9:02 AM and read the procedures to be followed during the meeting. II. Approval of Aaenda: Melissa Ahern moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Joey Hatfield Carried unanimously, 8 -0. III. Approval of Minutes — August 13, 2010: Corrections: • Ed Riley is a voting member of the Subcommittee — the Cover Page was revised On Page 11, the statement attributed to Joe Thomas was made by Tom Wides: We quickly said, `It's a revenue issue. " What Nathan has tried to do is recognize that we did look at this from a water loss perspective. No argument. But we separated that discussion. We are going to come back to discuss metering the water loss. What we simply are trying to do is get back to where we were on the RPZs prior to the last Board meeting in July. On Pages 12 - 13, the statement attributed to Tom Wides was made by Joe Thomas: We are not requiring the air gap. He continued: In 1993 or `94, after Hurricane Andrew, the Building Codes were changed to make sure that everyone's home was hurricane proof. Things change. In order to keep up — to try to continually make your system better and safe for your public and your customers, you have to be able to change as technology grows. • On Page 20, the statement by David Dunnavant (toward the bottom of the page) refers to the percentage of unaccounted for loss. On Page 20, Joey Hatfield asked the following questions (toward bottom of the page): I have two questions. What is the dollar value for this unaccounted for loss in your system — the total unaccounted for loss? The second — is Collier County Utilities operating at a budget deficit? Joey Hatfield moved to approve the Minutes as amended Second by Melissa Ahern. Carried unanimously, 8 -0. IV. Public Speakers: (None) 16111 B7 'A August 19, 2010 V. New Business: A. BCC Minutes from July 271b Meeting David Dunnavant requested Judy Puig, Staff Liaison, obtain a copy of the portion of the Minutes from the Board of County Commissioners' July 27h meeting pertinent to the BCC's direction to DSAC. [ Copies of the excerpt, entitled Item #10 -E, "Recommendation to Rescind the Administrative Stay of the requirement for Reduced Pressure Backflow Preventers on Fire Service Lines, and require Retroactive Implementation of the Requirement to June 8, 2010 — Motion to Continue until after DSAC Recommendations have been heard by the first BCC Meeting in September, 2010 (Pages 219 through 231), were distributed to the Subcommittee members. Copies of the excerpt will be provided to DSAC members at the September 1, 2010 meeting. ] [ Note: The Board of County Commissioners will meet on Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at 9:00 AM in Chambers.] Melissa Ahern stated Commissioner Henning had asked about water loss numbers. Chairman Varian referred to the Minutes of the BCC's June 8, 2010 meeting, and stated Commissioner Henning asked about the loss of water: "Where has it occurred, and how much has been saved since the Ordinance went into effect [Fall of 2009] ? " VI. Old Business: A. RPZ Requirement on Fire Services Chairman Varian asked Nathan Beals if he reviewed the NFPA -1 ( "National Fire Protection Association ") fire flow requirements. Nathan Beals: • Reviewed NFPA -1 Did not see any issues concerning substituting the National Fire Protection Association's requirements for the American Water Works Association's M31 Guidelines as the County's Standard The County's system design (40 psi) will adhere to whatever the Fire Code allows o If sprinklers are held to 50 psi, the system will probably be held to 50 psi as well Ed Riley: • 50 psi is used to design fire sprinkler systems • The 40 psi of the County was the requirement for full fire flow to be available at the building • Our fire flow has to be at 20 psi at the building — that what we (Fire Code) looks for 161197 `1 August 19, 2010 He noted Florida Statutes only requires that potable water at 20 psi is provided at the location (house or building) -- the water flow requirement is significantly less than the fire flow requirement. • NFPA -1's minimum fire flow for residential is 1,000 gallons for a single - family residence (less than 5,000 sq. ft.) • If a residence is larger than 5,000 sq. ft., the commercial chart (based on construction type) is used Chairman Varian asked if the "Proposed Revisions to Section I Design Criteria" (distributed at the August 13a` Subcommittee meeting) will be changed to reflect the substitution? Mr. Beals concurred. George Hermanson stated two different issues were being discussed and noted the required flow is known. • Also under discussion is changing the tie -in pressure requirements to do the analysis from 40 psi to something else Nathan Beals clarified the Engineer of Record will make the determination regarding pressure. Mr. Hermanson replied the change would be based on how the County's system is operated or modeled. At some areas, there may be 60 pounds at the tie -in. Paul Mattausch: • NFPA is based on the fire flow, not on the Model. Ed Riley: • There are two different requirements • Re: 40 psi issue — he referenced "Appendix H" of NFPA -1 to determine the fire flow requirements for a building • Verification is done by a flow test (unless Modeling results are available) that the hydrants on -site are capable of meeting that flow pressure requirement at 20 psi • The County's Manual states the required fire flow is 40 psi o The "change" is the County will no longer guarantee 40 psi • NFPA -1 lowers the County's requirement to provide 40 psi to 20 psi George Hermanson: • If we change these requirements, what are we going to use as our tie -in pressure when we do our Model for hydrant fire low? Our tie -in was always 40 psi, regarding of where we were in the system, so what are we going to use if it's not 40? Ed Riley suggested using a flow test for the pipe you are connecting to — and establish the starting pressures and volumes. He cautioned the "Kentucky Pipe Model" may not be reliable (unlimited available volume at starting pressure is not realistic when the system may not have that available). He gave an example of a situation at the North Naples Sewer Treatment Plant. 4 161 1 187 � August 19, 2010 He continued Fire Code requires an actual flow test at the connection to the main as the starting point. The only time a flow is extrapolated is for the design of a sprinkler system. George Hermanson: • We are required to do an analysis for hydrant flow outside the building. We do a Model based on 40. • Are there situations where you find you are using more than 40? • The 40 psi is very conservative. • Is the County going to rely on our judgment that if a system can deliver 50 or 60, and it can be proved, that's the number we use? Ed Riley: • It's not just pressure — it's also volume. George Hermanson: • We always have to model the volume -- but you have to have a driving pressure to delivery the flow. Ed Riley: • The available pressure would be acceptable -- what's available at that main. If it's 40, you use 40 — if it's 60, use 60. Whatever the available pressure is at that location — but using the starting volume that's available in the pipe ... not an unlimited or another assumption. Chris Mitchell: • One of the items discussed four or five years ago was the System's pressures were probably lowest in the 2:00 to 6:00 AM range. In recent discussions, the pressure is pretty much constant at the plant. They haven't lowered the pressure as in the past. But if that's traditionally still with irrigation use — I can't get East Naples to go out at 5:00 AM and get a flow test. • The 40 psi has always been explained as the worst -case pressure at 3:00 AM when the System demand is lowered and you have the irrigation use that will lower the system pressure. I am hesitant to use that. • All we have is the connection pressure. Then we're pipe limited. If we have a 50 -psi connection point, then the size of the pipe internal to the project is an 8- inch, which is the max delivery that we can do. We don't account for what the delivery upstream of our connection is. We don't do modeling extended beyond that. It's only from the connection point down. • In a sense, we don't account for the volume but we're only pushing the maximum of what that pipe can push. Generally, it's line -size to line -size, or line -size to a smaller line. • We would assume, based on the System's pressure, that if you're a same sized pipe or smaller, you're getting that delivery. Ed Riley: • You are sizing pipe based on the maximum amount of water that could flow 16 1[ i August 19, 2010 • through that 8 -inch pipe at a 40 psi starting pressure. When, in fact, you may have 40 psi available but you do not have the maximum volume that the pipe could handle. • When you get to your end node point, you do not have the volume of water in an actual flow test that you may calculate through your "Kentucky Pipe Model." And that's where we have a problem. • This doesn't really change anything other than the County stating it is no longer going to guarantee fire flow at 40 psi --- you are to do a flow test in the field — whatever it is — and design your system to it. • Fire has maintained even if a Kentucky Pipe Model is modeled on site, Fire will do an actual flow test when the pipe is installed to verify that there is adequate fire flow. There have been failures. • If you take a flow test on the main line and knew what water volumes and pressure were available, you will have a more accurate -- • This reduces the County's liability to provide fire flow at 40 psi. If you remove that and make it a calculation that the engineers will show you - -- I don't have a problem with it one way or the other. George Hermanson: • The question is directed to the Water Department: Do you have a Model of the distribution system -- transmission system performance — that indicates what we can depend on at various nodes? Paul Mattausch: • A Model was done for the 2008 Water Master Plan. The Model maps out the portions of the system according to pressure and available flows. • Models give you ballpark figures and flow tests taken in the actual area is the more indicative way to do this. George Hermanson: • I agree. The more data that you have, the better it helps you • My theory is always to stay on the conservative side of the line. Paul Mattausch: • The model is available. Anyone can look at it. The Water System Model is scheduled to be updated in November 2010. Chairman Varian stated the finding on the Health/Safety/Welfare issue will be presented to the BCC on September 14, 2010. There will be one more Subcommittee meeting in August and then it goes to the full DSAC on September I" for DSAC's recommendations. George Hermanson: • It would be helpful to have the Model to look at. • If this is a variable concept, it might work to our favor in most cases, to know the deficiencies so we don't have to over design. 1611 97 04 August 19, 2010 Nathan Beals: • The 2008 Water Master Plan is available on the Collier website (www.colliergov.net) under the Planning and Project Management Department. Chris Mitchell asked Staff to email the link to the site to the Subcommittee. (David Dunnavant arrived at 9:25 AM.) Chairman Varian: • The purpose of the RPZs is back flow prevention. • For quite some time, the DDCA ( "Double Detector Check Assembly") valve, or something like it, has been installed on the fire lines .... Ed Riley: • On certain fire lines. Chairman Varian: • Certain, but not all ... Ed Riley: • Anything that was connected to the County's backbone has an RPZ and has had for sometime — if it had a downstream connection which is considered anything like an FDC or any other kind of connection to that system would require an RPZ. If it has no cross connection at all — no FDC connection on it where we would tie to the system to augment the pressure if there was a fire, then there would be a DDCA if those were not present. David Dunnavant: • You kept saying FDCs and downstream connection — but for years, the FDC has not been considered "downstream" and a DDCA has been acceptable only hydrants coming off that line. • I am trying to understand that difference. I thought it was because perhaps there was an additional check valve on an FDC and not on a hydrant. Ed Riley: • There is an additional check valve that is put on anytime you have an FDC connection but it's to keep the flow back from coming back through the FDC connection. It's not an additional in the line itself. • It could be depending on how the FDC was connected. • That is the County's interpretation — that an FDC is a cross- connection. • Years ago, FDCs were not considered cross - connections for whatever reason by the County. Now, that is considered a cross - connection. David Dunnavant: • Since 2008. That's one of the reasons why we're here. Since 2008 — that's the 1611 97 August 19, 2010 • whole issue. In 2008, we had to have RPZs on everything. And I'm not sure if people understood it. • In 2009, we've got meters coming in. Ed Riley: • In 2000 or 2001, we were required to put RPZs on fire sprinkler systems that had a direct connection to the County's water supply. • The only time we did not was if it was on the private side of an existing back flow assembly, an RPZ, into a community that had multi - family. • On those buildings, you were allowed to put a DDCA valve and you will still be able to do that. • The only place RPZs, or what the County is adding, is that you would have to have an RPZ where you connect to the County's backbone. Any connection to the County's backbone system will have an RPZ on it. • If you're going inside a community that has an RPZ at the property line — it may be a combination line coming in which serves both potable and fire water. However where you tee off that and go into a building with a fire sprinkler system, a Double Check Assembly valve will still be acceptable — will still be allowed within that because it is not protecting the water — you have an RPZ between that sprinkler system and the County's backbone. That's what the County is protecting. David Dunnavant: We have two things: • The possibility in the future of single - family residential fire service and having to put an RPZ on it, even though it is a direct connection. • Commercially, if it is a dedicated fire service to the building with no downstream connections, of which the FDC was not considered a downstream connection — as long as there were no hydrants on it — the Double Detector Check was still available. The 2005 Utilities Manual clearly showed that. There were Febco Uprights. George Hermanson: • If it was a dedicated fire main right into a building, it was a Double Detector Check. David Dunnavant: • But this change in 2008 eliminates that ability. Even that service has to have an RPZ. And that's working toward putting a meter in. Ed Riley: • The sprinkler system for single - family homes, if there is not an FDC connection on it which Fire would rescind its requirement for 13 -Ds because the Standard gives you the option to place one on it — it's up to the AHJ — Fire would not require an FDC on that single family if it were going to require an RPZ. 1611 B7 % August 19, 2010 • As far as this Ordinance affecting that, it would not have an RPZ because it would not have a downstream connection. David Dunnavant: • 2008 says it does not matter whether it has a downstream connection or not, the only thing available in this County is the RPZ. There is no option for a Double Detector anymore. Nathan Beals: • For clarification — the intent of the Standards change is to have RPZs on every connection to the system whether it is a fire service or domestic use — whether or not it has a connection downstream — going forward. • Everything that was in the past — there were connections that when, due to Plan Review not seeing — the FDC after it went into the building -w- that's why there was no requirement for an RPZ, it was always, as a connection downstream — that an FDC was considered that. Joey Hatfield: • As Contractors, we were installing Double Detector Checks on fire lines up through until the time that this came in. • The details that were posted had conflicting information on them -- some had a picture of a Double Detector Check and a note that said "RPZ'— we were submitting them, having them approved, and installing them during those times. • This change is pretty dramatic for us in that it does impact our design. • Going forward, we don't see that there is a benefit to the sprinkler system. • It's a detriment to us. George Hermanson: • I sent a memo (email) -- my opinion is public safety is paramount. • If an RPZ is demonstrated to be really needed, I think we should consider it and not nix it just because of cost. • I also talked to Contractors about relative costs and I don't believe there's that much difference between the Double Detector check and an RPZ. We're not talking about a huge cost difference — it was hundreds of dollars over the tens of thousands of what it's going to cost in the first place. • I'm not in favor of the metering — I think it's a separate issue. I don't think we need to meter fire lines. • If we can keep those two separate — I think we should treat them separately — one is a Health/Safety/ Welfare issue and one is an economic issue. Joey Hatfield: • To address the cost issue: there are other costs that are not attributed just to the installation of that RPZ. • As we lose pressure, our pipe sizes inside the building have to go up to compensate for that. And that's really the issue. 16I � B7 a4 August 19, 2010 George Hermanson: • How much difference in pressure do you lose in those two devices? Joey Hatfield: • About five pounds George Hermanson: • Do you think that this difference in the policy of source pressure is going to help that? Joey Hatfield: • It won't have any affect on fire sprinkler design, no. George Hermanson: You have to start with the same, no matter what? Ed Riley: • You still extrapolate to 50 psi. • The issues that Chris had mentioned of his concern with the reducing of some pressure at night when we have other things going on — although it's been stated that during the last couple of years, the County hasn't reduced pressure at all — that's why that's in there. • It's also to cover, as NFPA 13 requires, for future reduction in the water supply as new users come onto the system -- they are going to degrade that system somewhat over time. That ensures that as designed, the sprinkler system will still work. (George Hermanson left at 9:35 AM.) Paul Mattausch: • We have approximately three years' worth of records — we don't vary the pressure any longer in the system. • We had some capacity issues that were resolved in December 2007 when we placed a new reverse osmosis facility online. That facility addressed all of our capacity issues. • Since then, we have been running consistently at 90 psi — that's an increase of approximately 20 psi that we have had in the system. That's consistent. • I don't know why the doubt keeps coming up because all of those records on pressure are available. • Using actual pressures and actual fire flows, according to the Models and according to what these guys get when they go out and run the tests, I do think it's going to benefit the design of the system. • Question: Is the 50 -psi an NFPA requirement or is that the Fire Code? Ed Riley: • It's ours. 10 16I�-1 B 7 -r August 19, 2010 • It's based on what's happening in other places in the State where they are doing the same thing. Bonita Springs does exactly -- we use the same thing that Bonita Springs uses. Chris Mitchell: • It's the downstream items that the costs are unknown— one. • Two, we've gone from not really sprinkling four -unit buildings to anything more than three units are now required with a fire sprinkler -- I did a project two years ago that was three stories. If you go to three stories, you are looking at the possibility of a fire pump -- and these were three unit/three story buildings. They were not massive buildings but the height requirement is going to cause you to put in a fire pump. • When we say it's only an additional 5 psi, again, when you start at 50 and drop 12 to 14 through everything, you're limiting yourself because you have to end at 20 for the site — whatever you need to pop the heads in the sprinkler system. The vertical component of overcoming pushing that sprinkler head is pretty significant. • I can appreciate the Health/Safety/Welfare, but as an Engineer and a resident of Collier County, I don't see the "imminent" Health/Safety issue compared to the Double Detector. • I think you have to have a lot of things fail in a Double Detector check valve and the system in order for the back flow to occur. • Is the RPZ safer? It is. The question is what is the benefit of dropping from the Detector to the RPZ, globally, on what we do? Not just the system and protection of the system, I think the DDCA valve _ as evidenced by the AWWA, other municipalities, and all the experts — has that level of protection that is adequate for the delivery of potable water in a non - high - hazard condition. • Again, it's not that it's not safer I would agree that an RPZ as it discharges to the atmosphere on the back siphon is more safe but at what level are you increasing safety from the DDCA and what impacts do you have downstream? • I think that has not been looked at. David Dunnavant: • We've all established that the RPZ is safer but the overall cost and this whole fire pump issue, the additional friction loss is going to create issues on any building of height. • This is a cost. It's getting more and more expensive to attract businesses and residents to Collier County. We're happy with our system as it is, but we're just making it more expensive. To neglect the impact of this is very shortsighted. • There has been no instance brought to us of health issues generated by the use of DDCA over the last twenty years. We damn sure haven't had a death. I don't quite understand why the push. But we have to get to "Step 2" -- • But we know what the "push" is — it's the metering of the systems. And it's not even metering the usage — it's just a revenue source and that's the way this started — as a revenue issue, not a safety issue. IF 1611 87 14 August 19, 2010 Chairman Varian: • In layman's terms: the Double Detectors are a type of back flow preventer, and the RPZ, basically, is an upgrade to that. • Collier County does live "above the grade" in a lot of areas, so installing the RPZ would be an upgrade to a DDCA. • It sounds as if it's almost the same protection pretty close -- from an AWWA point of view. Paul Mattausch: • The difference is when a DDCA fails, it fails back into the water supply system. • When an RPZ fails, it fails to the atmosphere. It doesn't go back into the public water supply system. Chris Mitchell: • That is true, but it's also important to state that you have two check valves that have to fail and back pressure that has to fail. You have three points of failure on a DDCA valve that must happen before you get the back siphoning. • There were times when a single check valve — and there are still applications where a single check valve is sufficient. • A Double, obviously, should lessen the risk. You have to have two valves that don't seed and you have to have the pressure of a main break where a system issue close enough to that area where the pressure would be less on the delivery side than on the purchaser's side. • That is true, but the probability is what you look at. That's a true statement but in the context of probability, it's still pretty low. David Dunnavant: • There are those three items plus a fourth — which is there has to be a contaminant on the back side of that. So all four of these have to occur for a contamination of the system to happen. Joey Hatfield: • That was the point I was going to make. • In the absence of a contaminant, the water that might back siphon into the system should a DDCA fail — it's the same water that was on the backside. • Unless someone is maliciously trying to inject something into the system, the likelihood of a contaminant getting back in there is minute. Chairman Varian: • From a fire sprinkler point of view, if a detector failed and the water was sucked or siphoned out of a sprinkler system, does the alarm go off if it was a detected system? Ed Riley: • Not back — the flow only works in one direction. 12 16 lilt B7 F+ August 19, 2010 Joey Hatfield: • If you were to lose pressure in the system through a main break, and the check valve failed, when the system re- pressurized, it could potentially set the flow switch off. Chairman Varian: • Has that ever happened in Collier County that we know of — if it was a detected system? I know there are still some systems that aren't detected — that aren't monitored. David Dunnavant: • Whether it's an RPZ or a Double Detector Check — they're both mechanical devices that get checked and certified every year. A Double Detector Check is maintained. An RPZ relied on a spring - loaded valve. Sometimes the springs are changed. • It's not like we put these things out there and walk away from them and ignore them. • On an annual basis, we know these things are functioning whether it's an RPZ or a Double Detector Check Assembly. • You will know every 12 months if one is likely to fail or not. Chairman Varian: • There are communities that have master meters --- a double meter? David Dunnavant: • If there's a high enough flow, they have to have a second meter because a meter is only going to accommodate a certain amount of flow based on the number of downstream connections. Chairman Varian: • There are communities out there that have a master meter. • Beyond that, there could be buildings, residences, etc., that the RPZ would only be for the main County system but nowhere else in the community. • So we're not protecting the Health/Safety of those residents in the community? Nathan Beals: • We don't have the jurisdiction to require that. It falls under the Plumbing Code. Chairman Varian: • In Collier County, is the average 20 to 30% of customers who are in these types of communities with master meters? David Dunnavant: • From that point forward, those are private lines. 13 164 B7 August 19, 2010 Chairman Varian: • The main system — your concern is the RPZ goes on it from a tie -in point of view, to protect the water in that. • The communities that have master meters — a contaminate could get in beyond that and affect the residences or whatever in the communities. • From a Countywide point of view, this is helping Health/Safety/Welfare, yet we're not helping those people. What's that percentage? How many communities are there? David Dunnavant: • Everything that exists doesn't get addressed. So the percentage is from this point forward. • I think we know that the bulk of our build -out has been the past ten years. • The percentage keeps getting smaller. David Aldrich: • Have we had any reports of contamination within the communities as a result of the failure of a Double Check valve? Joey Hatfield: • We are involved with a lot of multi - family communities in the maintenance, NFPA -25 inspections, and — to my knowledge we have never heard of any situations where the water quality was in question in these communities that are within — inside a master meter. Chairman Varian: • In the packet, there was also a letter from Public Utilities dated August 17th with some examples of leaks and some taps. • Again, Nathan, I guess you guys dug this up? There were some specifics — Sam's Club on Immokalee Road, the Mercato? Nathan Beals: • At the last meeting, Joey had asked for specific examples of where we've had misuse on fire lines — is the way I interpreted. • These are three examples, outside of Pelican Bay, that we had found illegal connections to the fire line. • All three examples have meters — which is the only reason we were able to find these and the Mercato is a relatively new development -- that happened during construction. When we saw the usage and they got the bill, they called us and we did an investigation and found that construction usage was tapped into their fire main. They disconnected and fixed the issue • That's the potential . that we don't know what could have happened but these were properly protected as it was. Joey Hatfield: • Did that have separate domestic and fire lines throughout the property? (The response from Nathan Beals was affirmative.) 14 16 1 E1' B7 August 19, 2010 • So, today, that's not going to happen -- correct? Systems are not installed that way anymore. We're not installing separate domestic and fire lines anymore? Chris Mitchell: • You have the option of doing that. Joey Hatfield: • But, given the option, you wouldn't do it. More than likely, correct? Chris Mitchell: • It really depends on the application and what's being constructed. You get the benefit of not doing double infrastructure and reducing the costs. But you have to look at what that does to the line -size that you then have to put in. • It depends on what the application and use is, really, of the facility. And how much infrastructure you would have to put in for fire or to upgrade your potable distribution to cover fire. Joey Hatfield: • My opinion of this is cross - connections can happen on fire lines but they could just as easily on an unmetered domestic main. That's the point that I struggle with in all of this. If somebody's going to try to tap a fire line, they could just as easily tap the City main that's unmetered and no one would ever know that either. David Dunnavant: • I have a copy of the Mercato's water bill on their fire meters -- they have two eight -inch meters — one for the residents and one for the commercial. The meters show usage. One of them was 2,000 gallons and the other was 10,000 gallons. • The 10,000 gallons hits that threshold where they are billed the $1,100 for the service charge. They used $20.00 worth of water but they had to pay $1,100 for the meter. • We were told that anything 5,000 gallons and over would be assessed, and anything under would not. • The other bill was 2,000 gallons of water used that month and a $1,100 charge. It's $2.00 worth of water and a $1,100 service charge. • Now — I don't understand what I heard during the last [Subcommittee] meeting. • The other issue is the usage on both of those meters didn't occur on the eight - inch meter -- it occurred on the two -inch bypass. So why do we need the full line -size meter? Why? Because it retains that $1,100 per month as opposed to the value of the two. • So what we hear and what happens — doesn't match up. • The Mercato is a wonderful example. First, it was "gee, a single eight -inch meter on a project that size isn't a big inhibitor." • I have a little 12,000 square foot building -- empty —just sitting out there and if this goes, I'll pay $700 a month for it. I can't find anybody to fill it. But because I have a fire service into it .... 15 August 19, 2010 And before we get off RPZs, this just further brings out the point — I don't understand, if there's not a downstream connection, who are we protecting with the RPZ? Why — if there's not a downstream connection — can we not maintain the Double Detector Check Assembly? Paul Mattausch: • I think we've answered that question in that we don't have any control on what happens on the downstream side of the systems. And I don't know, after the initial inspections, what happens to those pipes. I think we talked about that before. • We have found connections that have been made. • Let's talk about residential for just a minute. We've found many connections that have been made on the downstream side of the system and we've found, mostly, reclaimed water /irrigation systems that have been tied in with the potable water supply — many of them intentionally, so that they have the dual water in case they don't have reclaimed water available, they have potable water available for irrigation. • That's why I say we have no control beyond the meter and the reduced pressure back -flow preventer. And that's why we're trying to protect the system from cross connections. Joey Hatfield: • Are you saying that the cross connection is they're tying together an irrigation line to a fire line to have two supplies? Is that what I heard? Paul Mattausch: • No, they're tying to the potable water supply system. It's metered. Joey Hatfield: • Okay, so if they're tying to the potable water supply — where does the fire line come into play? I'm missing the point. David Dunnavant: • That's metered and you charge them both water and sewer usage. That's an expensive irrigation use. • I don't understand the Health/Safety/Welfare hazard here. Paul Mattausch: • It's a cross connection that's not protected appropriately by back flow prevention. • And, again, the same thing can happen on a fire line. We've found that on fire lines where we've had downstream connections that have been made after the initial inspection. M 1611 B7 a August 19, 2010 David Dunnavant: • How many of them were found outside of Pelican Bay? Paul Mattausch: • Well ... David Dunnavant: • I mean — you throw out the word "many" and we go back years and we don't get many examples ... Paul Mattausch: • No, I said there have been connections .. . David Dunnavant: • No, you've said "many" ... if we've got to go through that — it was "many." Paul Mattausch: • One is too many. • I'm trying to protect the public water supply system. David Dunnavant: • From all the deaths that have occurred with Double Detector Check Assembly systems? Chairman Varian: • We are trying to come to - -• again, we're on the business side. We understand you are on the Health/Safety/Welfare side. • Again, I don't think anyone of us in here will ever state where there's an issue or that we would stand in the way of Health/Safety/Welfare — absolutely not. • But, again, my analysis is the Double Check is a Cadillac and the RPZ is a Lexus. Why does Collier need the Lexus — why can't we go with the Cadillac? • The Cadillac is affordable — we can still build buildings with the Cadillac and we can't with the Lexus. • We're trying to grasp that — why the RPZ versus a Double Detector Check which we're using? • We know what the economy is like out there — we're not going to get people to come to Collier County if expenses keep going up the way they are, • Fully understanding where you're coming from — you've got to protect the public — absolutely. • What's the difference between the two? And what has changed? We have been doing this for how long now with the Double Detectors and everything else? What has changed to require the RPZ? • If we could get those answers, if we could understand that, we'll all have a better bite of this. Paul Mattausch: • It is reducing the potential risk. 17 1611 67 N August 19, 2010 Chairman Varian: • By how much? Ten percent — twenty percent? What's that number? Is that number out there? • And, again, we're also trying to grasp — your system as it stands today on August 19'' — nothing will change in that system. It's only from this point forward that it would change. Nothing else would be adjusted. • So, we're not going to change what's already in there — anything that's in the ground right now is not going to be adjusted. • What are we trying to do here? What's the percentages? Paul Mattausch: • That's not entirely true. Things are changing on residential services. As we find Double Checks that are failing, we are replacing those with the reduced pressure devices. • And we do find devices that fail. • The recommendation is not to go back and retrofit all fire services. But we are trying to reduce the potential risk from this point forward by not having any more construction with the Double Detector Check Assemblies — and going to RPZs because it is an increased, improved level of protecting the public water supply system. • The cost of the device is not substantial — I think the changes that we are making in the system — instead of designing to 40 psi, which is the interpretation of the current Ordinance, to 50 psi makes a considerable difference when we're talking about an additional 5 psi maybe. • So, we're looking at a 5 psi change on the system rather than designing to 40 we're allowing design to 50 ... Ed Riley: • The 40 to 50 issue — you're talking two different things. • The 40 psi has to do with the total fire flow required for a building that could be thousands of gallons. • The 50 -psi design for sprinkler systems is generally based on hundreds of gallons of water that will be required for that system to function. • They're not the same -- they are two distinctly different formulas and requirements. • Changing the 40 -psi — reducing it to whatever — or changing it to say, "... as long as it's hydraulically calculated ..." will not help the sprinkler issue. It will not help the reduction that the RPZ will put in. • There was one other thing mentioned — you briefly mentioned it today and it was mentioned at the earlier meeting — about finding cross connections and then replacing the DDCA valves with RPZs. • What is your policy on replacement and what types of systems are impacted? • I am particularly looking at sprinkler systems because if you found a cross - connection -- the comment was made that you found a problem, disconnected it, and reconnected it with RPZs. • I don't know which of those projects — where they were — or what your process was -- what you went through to make those changes, but that's of interest. 18 1611 B7 August 19, 2010 Nathan Beals: • Those were on domestic, single - family residential, non -fire connections — those replacements. Paul Mattausch: • That is correct --- those have all been on residential. • If we find them on fire services, we'll have to work together on that issue to make sure that the downstream volume is sufficient. Ed Riley: • And specifically, just to reiterate, Pelican Bay brought this to a head or a point back when Roy Anderson was still with you. • RPZs on fire sprinkler systems and the change -out of that back flow assembly can only be done by a fire sprinkler system contractor and only after his analysis of the system to make sure that the change will not negatively impact the system. And that's by Statute. Paul Mattausch: • That's what I just said _ we would have to work together. Joey Hatfield: • I'm concerned about that to some degree in that the —just replacing a valve because it failed just seems odd to me. • These are mechanical devices they do fail and we repair them -- that's the whole purpose of doing an NFPA -25 Inspection on the fire sprinkler systems is identify when these things happen. • We repair RPZ devices as much as we do Double Detector Check valves. • There is no perfect system and that's the purpose for ongoing maintenance of these systems. Just because it's an RPZ doesn't mean it's not going to fail - they are going to fail and they will dump on the ground. That's the only difference and it's something that has to be — the system has to be maintained. • The real question here is "What's the risk ?" • What in that system could potentially injure or harm someone if water back siphoned into that system? • A little history on back flow prevention — and you guys know this — most of you in this room do — prior to the `80s, there were no DDCA valves anywhere on any water supply. And as time the lobbyist for the back flow industry are what created this great fear that we have now of the potential for a contaminated water supply. • I believe a lot of that is nothing more than just a fear that's been created by that industry. • The reality going forward — we have fire sprinkler systems all over this country that have nothing more than a single check valve in the ground and they haven't endangered the public water supply in any city in America that I am aware of. 19 1611 97 August 19, 2010 • This is a different world that we live in, granted. But these systems do not impact the water supply. • If there is a fire sprinkler system that has a known contaminate that's going to be a part of that system — and we do have those. We have antifreeze type systems and we have corrosion monitoring systems that introduce chemicals into those systems. And on those systems, we advocate for RPZ —type back flow prevention. • But the reality is that 99% of the systems — 99.5% of the systems that we install do not have contaminants in those systems. • That's correct -- a standard -- a single detector check would be acceptable if we didn't have these back flow industry requirements in place. Chris Mitchell: • The change would have to be for the system design on the sprinkler side — would have to be acceptable up to 55 psi in order to overcome the 5 and then it would have to go up to 58 to overcome an in -size line meter based on all the numbers that have been thrown out. • You're going to a 58 — so that would have to be acceptable to Ed Riley and his group. • It wouldn't be from a 40 to a 50 — it would be from a 50 to a 58 to overcome the loss in pressure. • I feel like we're talking in circles -- we need to take a vote or hash it out — we've got one more meeting to do this. I think one of the most interesting things that has come out of this meeting was that I got a statement that it's a "reduce in risk" and not an "imminent Health/Safety/Welfare" issue. It's a "reduce in risk." • I think it's all in how it's presented. When you present information to people who aren't as well versed in what we're speaking about as we are — it comes across that it's a health -risk issue and it's really not. • We have back flow prevention in place. We have in place a program that prevents cross connections. Are they violations? There are. There always will be. There are penalties for that. So if there are penalties in the system set up to discourage, then that's how it's handled. It's a Code Enforcement issue. • For me, personally, I don't know how you're going to get this side of the room to see that it's an "imminent" health risk issue such that we would support it as it is today. Because we haven't heard what the "imminent" risk is --because the program is in place, the devices are there, the devices work -- it's an additional risk reduction is what it comes down to. • What benefit does that have for the system when you take into account everything downstream of the RPZ versus a Double Detector Check valve? Paul Mattausch: • I have never said "imminent threat to public health" — I have always talked consistently about reducing the risk. And there are many, many examples that you can go to that we reduced the risk in our daily lives. And some of them have become requirements — others have not. We can go to many, many examples of reducing the risk. And that, simply put, is what we're trying to do 20 161.1 B 7 August 19, 2010 to protect public health and the public water supply system — is to reduce the risk. • If you go back a number of years, we weren't using disinfectants in public water supplies -- we've done that to reduce the risk. • We've done a lot of things to reduce risk and that's simply put, what we're doing. Chairman Varian: • I just went over the Minutes from the July 27th BCC meeting and on Page 224: "Commissioner Halas: Okay. My final question is, this is a health, safety problem; is that correct?" Mr. Mattausch: That is correct. " • It is a health, safety problem — is that correct? Paul Mattausch: • Yes. The potential is there to be a health risk to the public. Chairman Varian: • "Potential" -- okay — this [the Minutes] didn't say "potential." I want to make sure of that. Paul Mattausch: • Well, the way he stated the question — the answer was "yes." Chairman Varian: • Does the County have any single -check valves in its system currently? Do you know? Have you done an analysis? Ed Riley: • You probably do have some very old fire sprinkler systems that would have a single check. Chairman Varian: • "Old" meaning - - -? Fifteen- - twenty -- ? Ed Riley: • 20 — 25 - --- 30 years old. Very old. • I would say anything from the `80s on would probably be a Double Check but there are probably some of the real old ones out there. • Some of those may have been upgraded over time, too ... Joey Hatfield: • That's possible ... 21 16 11 87 4 August 19, 2010 Ed Riley: ... but I would say it would be a very limited number that are still out there. Chairman Varian: • The RPZ may only be a $500 or $700 upgrade between the Double Check. • The other side of that is he loses the 5 -psi and has to adjust his system which, for that owner, could possibly mean a fire pump — a whole different avenue. • It's definitely going to mean larger pipe sizes — you take the furthest head, wherever it is, and you have to read a certain psi at that head. • To get to that, you are going to work backwards and your pipe is going to increase accordingly based on the volume you need at that farthest head. Is that correct? Joey Hatfield: • That's correct. Chairman Varian: • So, from a building owner point of view, it's $700 in the hole upfront— that's fine. • But there's a whole other avenue that could be tens of thousands depending on the size of the building? Joey Hatfield: • It could start at the connection and go from a four -inch lead -in to a six -inch lead -in. • Pipe sizes in the building would go up. • As height goes up on the building, that's when fire pumps come in. • The answer is "yes" to all of the questions -• all of the components, including the underground supply would go up. Chairman Varian: • We're not just looking at the connection point — we realize that seems minimal on a million dollar building. • From the business side of it — we're trying to look at it that way, too. Ed Riley: • There is an acceptable level of risk. • What is that acceptable level of risk? • Generally, that acceptable level of risk on any item that you try to regulate has to do with cost and impact in its relationship to the increase in your level of safety that you are achieving. • What you've heard here so far is that it hasn't been demonstrated that there's any significant impact on the level of the increase of life/safety for this, but there is a significant impact on the cost. • Therefore, when you do a risk analysis, it doesn't equate. It doesn't add up. It doesn't make sense. 22 1611 B7 August 19, 2010 • The County Commissioners have gone on record against the high -rise retrofit requirements for fire sprinklers and the thing was it was risk/reward. The cost associated with what you might likely gain in life /safety --- and there are documented deaths in high -rise fires -- there are documented death in single - family residential fires. • But this State has taken it -_ that the acceptable level of risk within the State is to not require that those places be protected because of the costs associated especially at this time — when the economy is the way it is. • I'm not here to say that there isn't a possibility that something could happen. ] think what you're hearing is that it doesn't appear to be a significant hazard that's out there — but the cost is significant to try to offset a minimal gain in life /safety. • I don't think the risk analysis or cost/benefit analysis for that would support going this extra step. • I think if the argument was given to the County Commissioners based on the same other items that they talked against, which had proven — shown-- life/ safety hazards and death attributed to it, and the costs associated with that, I don't think they would support, or would be able to support, this kind of a significant cost associated with sprinkler -ing these buildings for a very limited — if any — life/safety benefit. • I don't think that's something that could be proven to them. David Dunnavant: • I think a mis- impression has been created somehow that increasing the pressure coming from the plant helps overcome the use of an RPZ. It doesn't. • We have a Fire Code — that's between Fire and Utilities. • It will impact. It will impact buildings throughout and the real concern is — we're looking at fire pumps. If you get anything of height, we're now looking at more and more fire pumps. • I keep hearing — at this time — this current proposal does not address existing systems. I don't know that it's not a next step. This has been a systematic approach as is. • I'm completely confused why Mr. Mattausch would use examples of cross connections made to a domestic water system in a discussion of fire lines and RPZs. That's apples and oranges and it's only confusing the issue. Paul Mattausch: • We've had a fire service connected to an irrigation system. I just used a particular example. Joey Hatfield: • And that also happens on domestic lines as well — correct? Paul Mattausch: • Yes, that's correct. 23 1611 87 1 August 19, 2010 Joey Hatfield: • To unfairly single out the Fire Line Industry, I don't think is where this should go. Paul Mattausch: • We're not singling out the Fire Industry — we are requiring RPZs on all domestic connections and we're systematically going through the system. • Right now, we have about 33,000 currently installed on 55,000 service connections. • We have a program — a capital program — over the next five years to complete that process. • No, we're not singling out any particular industry or type of customer or anything else. Chairman Varian: • But you also can't touch changing out anything to do with the fire systems. • A good percentage of your customers are residential and that's fine. • But you can't touch the fire systems — you can't change a Double Check to an RPZ without going through massive changes — correct? • So, in your program — that's not in it. • We're still looking at most of your residential customers. David Dunnavant: • Until this Health/Safety/Welfare issue showed up in July, it had been a revenue issue. • And this started, I think, in anticipation of sprinkler system requirements for residences which didn't pass the State Legislature this year. So now, we're no longer dealing with commercial — we are also dealing with the residential aspect. • This is a revenue source. I just pointed out one project I knew of that used about $22.00 of water last month that got charged $2,200. • Multiply this through the system and we're looking at the same thing on residential. If and when residential gets fire lines and we're looking at meters on that — and they have a standby meter - we're looking at a monthly charge to a residence for a system that isn't used. • I received a copy of Nathan Beals' letter yesterday pointing out the three examples, but the inline meter is not the only way you found it. As I stated, the usage at the Mercato last month showed up at the by -pass meter, not the in -line meter. • If you are looking for usage, you can do that off the current by -pass meters that are there. At some level, it gets overwhelmed and doesn't give an accurate reading. It's not a use for billing purposes, but it is an indication of use. Nathan Beals: • You're correct. When there's a detector meter, it does detect usage. And if they weren't using more than 3 gallons per minute, it will go through the detector and find that usage. 24 1641B7 01 August 19, 2010 • You brought up the bill from the Mercato. I will talk to our Utility Billing . if that's accurate, then that was incorrect. You pointed that out and we should correct that. I don't know why it was done that way. David Dunnavant: • Even the one that was 10,000 --they used $12.00 worth of water and they got a $1,100 bill on that meter. • And this is a month after month application. This is revenue. • I think it was in anticipation of the residential usage. • We're just increasing the cost to live in Collier County. • As Ed pointed out, we haven't even got into the fact that you're actually charging the people who have the most efficient water use systems and fire use, as opposed to the people without sprinklers. Those people take no impact on this. • This all started - at least at DSAC — when Mr. Mattausch explained there was a system loss use - -- they could identify half of it — about 5% was unidentified. They identified half through flushing programs and breaks that they knew of • We haven't even gone through the other issues that contribute to water loss in a system that aren't going to be recovered by anything in this. • We have other reasons why water is being lost in the system and this is just a way to pay for it. That includes leaks in the system, oversized meters for different reasons that aren't adequately registering flow, it could be replacement system on meters certification and replacement on old, obsolete meters --• there's lots of things. • This is a way to create revenue for Utilities without having to address the fact that there are imperfections in the system and taking it to the general public. And, in that regard, it does seem targeted. • Ed was on point at the last meeting when he discussed the fact that the sprinkler systems are more efficient, yet they are the ones who are going to take this bill month after month. David Aldrich: • We agreed that Utilities has to review the policy on stolen water or inefficient use of water and what ramifications Utilities has for the enforcement of that. • The route that we're going here to try to increase the cost on new projects which will be existing projects at some point, I don't want to see it happen here. • From Nathan's letter, there is one issue that bothers me the most — that is the Pelican Bay issue. "Without the water meter, there is no incentive to fix leaks in a timely manner. " • Basically, that's almost equivalent to stealing water if they have an inefficient system, and it's spilling water. • I think they would fall under some guideline that you would be able to drop a hatchet on that. Am I incorrect? 25 16 M-' B7 August 19, 2010 Paul Mattausch: • There are certain things that we can do and certain things that we can't do. We put pressure on them as far as we can go. • We kept insisting the leak be repaired. And that's not a singular incident. • I can't require somebody to fix a leaking faucet beyond the meter and if I don't have a meter, I can't account for all that water. There's no way to measure that amount of water. David Aldrich: • It's a usage issue and you have an ongoing - -- how did you account for the leak in that situation? You knew the leak existed and you told them to repair it and there was no incentive for them to do it. • I would think you would have some sort of means to empower that. Joey Hatfield: • What we're talking about here — this was an irrigation system that was connected to a fire line and the irrigation system had the leak. Correct? Nathan Beals: • My understanding of the example, the Valencia (at Pelican Bay), that was just a leak on the fire system that we noticed somehow when we were out doing our checks. Paul Mattausch: • I wasn't on site so I can't answer that. Joey Hatfield: • If that were the case, there are enforcement rules in place — the Fire Marshalls have the authority to enforce those rules. If there's a leak on a fire sprinkler system whether it's a fire Iine or inside the building — they are required to fix that immediately. • The Fire Marshalls would not allow a fire sprinkler system to be in jeopardy if that were the case. • But what I read tells me that this is a cross - connection issue and you do have enforcement powers to correct that. Is that correct? Paul Mattausch: • Yes, we do. Joey Hatfield: • So that's really not an issue. This [letter] really doesn't mean anything then from what I gather. Melissa Ahern: • I just wanted to cover the Fire Meter Report that was originally distributed. There was some information on there that was somewhat misleading. 26 161 1 B7 August 19, 2010 • I believe Industry had stated no other communities were doing this and Utilities listed 10 to 12 areas that are. • All of the areas that were listed -- I don't think at this point we found any that actually had flow through meters required — which isn't stated on here. • And in terms of the charges — I went online and pulled actual fees to see what people were charged and its $72 a month, $105 a month (quarterly), some were annually -- $200 a month. • The amounts that are being charged, which would be comparable to the Availability Fee, are minimal compared to what David Dunnavant is talking about at $1,100 a month for $2.00 of water usage. • I wanted to go on record that this is very misleading. In the large scope of things, you have 12 to 13 places in the whole country listed here. But these aren't requiring the flow through meters. • There was one that was interesting in South Carolina that did have that in place and it made the cost so high to build the building that they didn't sprinkle the building. There was a fire and seven fire fighters died. • 'Then the Ordinance was repealed. Ed Riley: • ... Charleston, South Carolina ... Melissa Ahern: • I wanted this on the record because it seems to be somewhat misleading. Chairman Varian: • From a Committee point of view, we have to make a recommendation to DSAC, and DSAC will make the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. We have one more meeting. And we have another half -hour here. • We have been going back and forth on the RPZs for the last hour and a half. • I don't know if we've gotten anywhere other than where we are with two [opposing] sides. • We need to move forward and agree on something. Melissa Ahern: • We agree to disagree. Chairman Varian: • We still have the meter issue also, which we've dabbled with but we haven't dove into that much we've been nipping at it. David Dunnavant: • What's the difference between an in -line meter and an electromagnetic? Is there .... Ed Riley: • Whether or not it's listed for fire usage. 27 ib l .i B7 �A August 19, 2010 David Dunnavant: • Are there no electromagnetic necessarily listed for fire usage? Ed Riley: • There may be but ... David Dunnavant: • If it's not impeding or having a significantly reduced friction loss ... Ed Riley: • Anything that is used in a fire system, including the back flow assemblies, is required to hold a U/L listing for fire use. David Dunnavant: • How about if I put it just on the system side of the back flow? Is everything — everything in the Utilities System? Ed Riley: • The point of connection where that water is firewater only — everything has to be listed. David Dunnavant: • So what if we put the magnetic meter just on the outside --before its firewater only? Ed Riley: • You don't get to pick — to say its fire water at this point — it's where that water is used for nothing else but fire. • If I come off my main and I put a "T" in — at that location of the "T" where that water is diverted for the fire protection water, everything from that point forward is fire protection service ... that's laid out by Florida Statutes. You can't change that. David Dunnavant: • Is this a matter that — the manufacturer of that type of meter has not gotten a U/L listing? Ed Riley: • Probably it hasn't been tested. David Dunnavant: • I'm trying to understand how it's going to impede at all your flow. In fact, it's less intrusive than an in -line meter. Ed Riley: • It's not necessarily just that. It's the testing. 28 161 1 B7 iA August 19, 2010 • We have to be 200 -pound psi- tested for everything in the system. Standard water is 150 psi - tested. • The Standards are different for the materials that are being used because we operate at higher pressures under fire conditions. It's not just that simple. Nathan Beals: • There is one electro- magnetic meter (EVO Q -4) that's FM approved for fire usage and the pipe diameter within the meter reduces, so there is a one to three gallons per minute pressure loss or psi loss, not gallons. David Dunnavant: • Would FM alone suffice? Ed Riley: • Yes, U/L or FM approval would be sufficient and we would allow it to be used. Joey Hatfield: • Does that require a strainer line also? Nathan Beals: • No, it does not. David Dunnavant: • The flow through meters are what increase --- • We haven't even talked about the fact that the meter assemblies in an RPZ are going to take at least one parking space out - -- they're like 19 feet long and you have to have clearance on each side of them. As opposed to the "N" type. • Wilkins Zurn makes an upright RPZ -- it just won't accommodate the in -line meter. Chris Mitchell: • We're allowed to use the "N" style with an RPZ and an in -line data electro -mag meter — we can use that it's a change that's been - this year ... David Dunnavant: • You can't on a fire line. Ed Riley: • He said it was U/L or FM approved. • If it is FM approved, we will permit it to be used as long as it is installed per its listing. Chris Mitchell: • That was, maybe, three or four months ago ... Nathan Beals: • It was about six months ago. 29 16IEL 67 ''4 August 19, 2010 There were questions brought up about trying to find electro- magnetic meters. I talked to Fire Review and had the same question -- if there's nothing impeding the flow, why does it need to be FM or U/L approved. Because everything that touches the fire service is required to by NFPA. Because of that, we went out and found this one and we're talking to other manufacturers to see if there is the ability -- there's another company, Badger, that makes an electro- magnetic one and they have no interest in going out and getting FM or U/L [approval] because it costs them money to get that. David Dunnavant: • In discussions with installation contractors, I can tell you the guys who have that meter only — they know it it raises the cost. Without the competition and knowing that's the only acceptable system, it's a cost. • That's the only one we can do in a reasonable space. Otherwise, we're talking about a 19 -foot long assembly, above ground, which you have to accommodate for — make a County Utilities easement, and then you deal with landscaping — you're conceding property. Chris Mitchell: • Stabilized access next to it for service — that truly is an unaccounted for cost because you impact the infrastructure that you would have serving the building. Chairman Varian: • And the Double Checks — they don't take up that much space? Chris Mitchell: • No, it would be the same. It's really — truly — the "N" style and having the "N" style assembly available which they have in either the Double Check and the RPZ. Ed Riley: • It's the meter requirement. David Dunnavant: • It's the in -line meter requirement — • Now that we have one that may be magnetic — it's the meter requirement which creates the long above ground — as opposed to something that's about four -foot wide and five -foot tall. Chris Mitchell: • It's the whole process -- it's the spool pieces, it's the strainer, it's everything and the electro is the only one that I know of that can read vertically. David Dunnavant: • What Chris is describing are the additional costs above the difference between the back flows. It's not just the back flow. 30 16114- B7 ' August 19, 2010 • When you start putting in an in -line meter, you're talking about spools and strainers — • I know a contractor who told me he was forced to change one out on a project the materials cost was $15,000. • So we don't stop at $700 — it goes from there. Joey Hatfield: • Additionally, there are requirements to inspect and test these devices annually as well. • Per NFPA -25 — the top has to be taken off and the strainer has to be taken out and cleaned annually. • That's an additional cost over what a normal Double Detector Check Assembly valve would have. David Aldrich: • There is a possible annual flush charge — you would have a usage or a potential volume — cubic foot volume that would be calculated by the engineer — if you were required to do four a year or two a year — if you knew about how many gallons would be coming off that — that would be something to be charged one time a year --- • Utilities mentioned a concept like that had not been reviewed • Is that a possible alternative here to what we're talking about to go through -- to put all this hardware on a building? Paul Mattausch: • This would be done in a Rate Study to substantiate the costs of fire service on the system. David Aldrich: • Can you — I have a problem with the availability charge. • For using $20 to $50 worth of water, you have a $1,100 fee. • Can you expound on that a little bit? • How do you have such a high charge it's the 5,000 gallons that triggers it, so the difference between using 1,000 gallons and 4,000 gallons or 6,000 gallons -- it is not a lot of water. David Dunnavant: • If the bill were 2,000 — they would still get the fee. David Aldrich: • How -- where did that fee come from? • That was put into place — when? • How is it justified? Paul Mattausch: • There isn't a current fee that's been put in place. 31 1611 87 August 19, 2010 • The Ordinance — there is no — unless there's usage and, again, I can't talk about how a particular bill is calculated, but ... David Dunnavant: • Then how are you billing it if there's not a fee? Paul Mattausch: • No, no, that's not what I'm saying — I'm trying to answer your question. • There is a cost to a water system to provide availability for fire service. • We will do a Rate Study to see what that cost is to the system. That will be vetted before DSAC and presented to the Board of County Commissioners. • When that is put in place on fire services ... Chairman Varian: • I think the question is — right now in your current Fee Schedule --- this came up in DSAC a while back — 2 -inch, 3 -inch, 4 -inch meter on a building uses "x" amount — they get charged for water usage plus a fee — on the commercial side. • Water meter size has something to do with a fee currently? Paul Mattausch: • Yes — that was also done in the last Rate Study. • In fact, it's been in place for a number of years. • But, yes, it's based on usage and on the size of the fire service. Chairman Varian: • I'm going back to domestic water — domestic water for drinking — • Right now, if it's a two or three inch meter, and you use "x" amount of gallons as a commercial building ..•. you get charged that plus a fee. Paul Mattausch: • A service availability fee. Chairman Varian: • For current, domestic water on a building? • That's probably.... David Dunnavant: • You don't even have to use any ... Paul Mattasuch: • That's correct ... Chairman Varian: • ... how the Mercato is getting hit right now — is that it's under that study. • That's probably where Mercato's rates are coming from? 32 16I11 87 August 19, 2010 Paul Mattausch: • There's an availability charge for service — a base charge that — regardless of the usage or not —just like my electric bill -- if I'm gone for a month, I still have a potential demand that I've placed on the Utility system. • And that's what a service availability charge is for — it covers the cost of the infrastructure that it takes to be able to provide service when the faucet is turned on. • It's like if you turn the light switch on. Chairman Varian: • Meter size has a lot to do with that — right? Paul Mattauuch: • It's based on meter size, yes. Ed Riley: • That's where I have a real big problem with - -- I brought this up at the last meeting • There is a water standby charge or availability charge for a fire sprinkler system that has much less of an impact on the Utilities system, in the case of a fire, than does any building without a sprinkler system of the same size. • If you're going to have a standby fee to provide fire protection water, it needs to be analyzed and spread across the entire scope of all rate users throughout the system. • Every structure has to be forwarded water for fire protection — that's what the hydrant system is there for — and if they're not being charged anything for that standby water availability to protect their homes, when we go out and hook to that hydrant to put a fire out, which (on average) takes about 80 to 80% more water than a building does with a sprinkler system, then the impacts are reversed. • They should be charged more than those who put a sprinkler system in and affording a smaller impact on the Utility system. In fact, the fire flow requirements — the hydrant requirement — can be reduced up to 75% for a building with a sprinkler system. • If 4,000 gallons are required for a building, I can reduce that actually to as low as 600 gallons under certain conditions for a building with a sprinkler system. • The impact of the building with a sprinkler system on the Utility system is far less than that of a non - sprinkler building. • What Utilities is doing is penalizing by putting fees on the people who decided to install a sprinkler system for added protection. • The other thing that is uncalculated and isn't looked at on the non - sprinkler buildings — approximately 70 to 75% of buildings that closed because of fire fail when they re -open because they've lost their client base. You lose your tax revenue because you have a vacant building where they couldn't survive. • Buildings with sprinkler systems generally re -open — sometimes the same day -- after a fire. You have your continued revenue stream and your tax structure still in place. 33 1611 87 August 19, 2010 • Utilities is really mis- guided in putting additional fees on these systems that don't impact negatively the Utility system or the tax system. They enhance it. • Adding additional fees to them just isn't right. It's not fair. Chris Mitchell: • Ed said it all. • I am a big proponent of increasing the efficiency in which we provide protection but if we're not going to charge for it because the guy uses the hydrant on the street versus charging the guy who has a fire suppression system - that wouldn't be fair and equitable. David Dunnavant: • Mr. Mattausch, you just stated for the record that there's no fee established for fire service at this point, but you are charging people for it. • Something is not congruent there. Paul Mattausch: • No, there is a fee in the Ordinance. There is a current fee in the Ordinance • What I was talking about was the "go forward" point. • We will take a look at the rate impacts and I agree entirely with you — there is less of an impact with a sprinkler system than there is with a non - sprinkler system — that's why — one of the current things that we're looking at — and again, this will all be substantiated in a Rate Study — is charging, as a number of other Utilities do, one - twelfth of the service availability fee rather than the full availability fee that is currently charged. So that availability fee would go down. • And then it would be based on if we approve meters. It would be based on actual usage. • If we don't approve the meters, it would be based on an availability charge. • Again, we would have to determine all of this in a Rate Study. • But I think, Ed, in order to be able to answer part of your question, fire hydrants and the service availability charge is, I believe, already included in the rates -- that's part of what is built into the rates. • I will make certain from our rate consultant .... Ed Riley: • That should cover a building with a sprinkler system also. • That availability is there and it is in the rate structure -- they should not have to pay an additional availability fee — that's basically dual taxation -- dual cost -- paying twice for the same service. Paul Mattausch: • But on a fire service that currently is — there's an ability to currently bill for actual usage. But there's no service availability charge on all of the fire sprinkler systems and they certainly do place a potential demand on the system just like a residential services places on the system — whether you use water or not. 34 16 1 1 67 August 19, 2010 • What we are looking at — currently there's no for a private fire service, there's no connection fee, there's no availability charge, there's no mechanism outside this Ordinance when there is use on a system -- there's no way to provide for the system that has to be constructed in order to provide for fire flow. • My system would be much smaller — all of the water distribution system -- the number of pumps that I have to have standing by, ready and available, the amount of storage that I have to construct on the system -- everything is constructed based on providing fire flow. • We don't just take into account the domestic and commercial usage when we design a system. It is over - designed and there's a cost to that. • There's a cost to having me provide the additional number of pumps that it takes to provide fire flow. • There's a cost to me to provide the amount of storage that is required on the system to maintain a sustained flow for three hours or whatever NFPA requires in order to fight a fire. • There are costs to the water system for all of them that are currently not being addressed in the rate structure. That's what we are looking at. • Right now there's a private fire service -- there's no cost. Ed Riley: • For clarification, Paul. You just stated that you thought that the standby water fee for supplying the fire protection water was already in the rate structure. • And now you're saying that it isn't — or it hasn't been addressed. Paul Mattausch: • It is for our metered customers. • It's not for fire services. • But a lot of my system demand and capital requirements are for providing fire service. Ed Riley: • The fire service requirement that you're talking about can be 75% higher or more for a non - sprinkler building that's not paying an additional fee because you're saying they are already in the rate calculation. They are there. • A sprinkler system going on uses 25% of the water or the required standby water, if you will, for that system to protect that building. Yet, they are not included in that rate structure -- which I don't understand. • If the building is there and you have a rate structure and you're calculating it throughout — the base rate that they pay is the same as everybody else's base rate — and that fee should include that sprinkler building. • As I said, to charge them an additional fee because they have a sprinkler system in it — they are reducing the impact on your system. • If every building in this County had a sprinkler, you could have much smaller lines, much less water supply requirements because they have dramatically lessened the impact on your system. 35 16-11 B7 August 19, 2010 Chairman Varian: • The other question — God forbid, there's a fire out there — a residential home requires fire service to it. That's when you tap a hydrant. And you use a lot more water on that type of a fire versus a building with a fire sprinkler. • So your rate payers that might get that fire service benefit from the larger pipes and everything else — are also the residents of Collier County who live in single - family homes without fire sprinklers. • Listening to all that ... Paul Mattausch: • I certainly didn't deny that. I acknowledge that. That's why the current thought is to charge one - twelfth of that availability charge rather than the full availability charge because we do realize that there is a difference. Joey Hatfield: • Just discussing single - family we use about 18 gallons per minute for a single sprinkler operating to control a fire. The majority of fires — 80% or so — are controlled by one sprinkler in a single - family residence. And those fires will be under control — or should be under control _, -- by the time the Fire Department arrives. • The demand that would be required to put a fire out in a single - family home is very much reduced from what would be used if there were not a sprinkle in the home. • That's one point that I wanted to make. • The second one was -- in what you said, Mr. Mattausch, was that the system you maintain is much increased in size because of the demand of the fire flow requirements. • I want to clarify that to make sure we understand that's not because of fire sprinkler systems that are connected to your system, but the overall fire flow requirements is for the community in the system. Paul Mattausch: • I agree. I'm not arguing that point at all. Joey Hatfield: • To further that — we agree that the fire sprinkler systems that are put into place benefit the water system and yet we, therefore, still want to charge those people who have a fire sprinkler system in place. • The fire sprinkler system puts a lesser demand on the overall water system and yet we, therefore, want to charge those people who installed that system. Paul Mattausch: • I'm not arguing that at all — what I'm saying is that there currently is no charge for that potential demand that they are placing on the system. Joey Hatfield: • And that's the point. 36 161 1 B7 w August 19, 2010 • We believe that since that fire sprinkler system is in place and is going to place a lesser demand on the system for that building, that there should be no charge for it. Chris Mitchell: • I think, one, it's important to say that, Paul, that's true for --- fire services that don't have meters. • In the case of the Mercato, it is metered. • David, I think the answer that you're looking for is the rate structure for domestic delivery is the rate structure that's used right now for the current in- line meters. • There is no separate fire --- there is potable water for delivery and that's the meter — if it's an 8 -inch meter, then it's the 8 -inch potable water meter rate structure that's used currently. • There's no separate analysis. David Dunnavant: • Paul, you just said twice -- I guess I need to understand it — that you're considering charging one - twelfth of the system development charge as opposed to — what are we doing now -- we're charging the full amount on a monthly basis. Nathan Beals: • As the current Billing Ordinance rate structure states, if you use more than 5,000 gallons on a fire service, it's considered having domestic usage and that has a full availability charge and all usage billed. If it's over 5,000 gallons. • If it's under 5,000 gallons, there shouldn't be a bill. I have to check on the Mercato that you brought up. I don't know why that was that way. • But what Paul is saying is that we're looking towards — in the future and with a Rate Study and bringing it back to the Board for — a different rate structure for fire which would be as the State Statutes states — it's one - twelfth of the availability charge of a standard domestic connection. So, over the year, you would pay one full availability for that service line. • That's what we're looking at — it still has to come to the Board — it still has to come forward. David Dunnavant: • Would that not be one - twelfth of the amount currently in the system — I mean the base charge for a domestic meter? Nathan Beals: • Yes. David Dunnavant: • So why would the current Ordinance not address it as such — since that seems eminently more fair. 37 1611 B7 t"A August 19, 2010 • Why do we need a Rate Study if there's a State Statute indicating that one - twelfth of the charge is appropriate? • Why do we need a Rate Study to identify — you've already identified — in this instance, an 8 -inch meter — what the full charge is. • Why aren't we charging one - twelfth of that at this point? Why do we have to wait? Nathan Beals: • Because our Billing Ordinance is the way it is — but the State Statutes says we can. • Just like AWWA says we can require meters. But it doesn't say you should — it doesn't recommend against it or for it it says that the Utility has the option to require it. David Dunnavant: • And this was the Billing Ordinance created in 2009 on the Consent Agenda that you presented? Nathan Beals: • I did not present it — Utilities presented it on the Consent Agenda — the change — but there were no updates to this because of this situation. Melissa Ahern: • I think we need to clarify — if you have a building and it is not sprinkled and, therefore, dependant on a fire hydrant — and you have one with a sprinkler — are they paying different rates? • I think what Ed is saying — if they're already paying the same rate, they're already paying for the service provided. If they add a sprinkler to the system which is now reducing what they require from your system, and we want to charge them more. And you're saying right now, we're not charging them anything. • But the argument is — if they are paying the same rate as a non - sprinkler building, then we are already charging them they're already paying more. Therefore, there shouldn't be an additional charge. Paul Mattausch: You are exactly right, Melissa. Currently they are not paying anything. Melissa Ahern: • But they're paying the same rate as a non - sprinkler building — correct? Paul Mattausch: • No, they're not paying any rate. [Comment: "for fire "] 38 1611 B7 '" August 19, 2010 Paul Mattausch: • For fire services, they are currently not paying any rate unless there is usage — regular usage on the system over 5,000 gallons. Melissa Ahern: • In their domestic rate — in their normal water rate are they paying the same thing as a non - sprinkler building? • Are you saying that charge is being charged to everybody? Ed Riley: • If they're paying the same base rate — then they are paying for — as I understood it — that the base rates include the fire protection water that is necessary for a non - sprinkler building. They are paying that in the base water rate. • They are not paying it through a fire connection, but their potable water rate — they're paying for those structures they all have potable water — are paying the fire protection amount. • That's the size of the system to provide fire protection. • That's to every rate user that's on domestic water. • In these buildings -- we're not talking some, but very few are not — already have a domestic water — there are a few out there that have sprinklers with no domestic water — but there would only be maybe a half a dozen in the County but — and that is my point — that the same building owner through his domestic supply,, - in that bill — is paying for fire protection availability. • He added another system to reduce the impact and now it's being proposed that he pay one - twelfth of that availability fee for that water when that fire sprinkler system has less impact on the water utility than does the non - sprinkler building which is already being paid for. • He's reducing his impact on the water utility by putting the sprinkler system in and the argument could be made that he should pay less. • As a rate payer and a sprinkler building — because they are taking that demand away from the system — they shouldn't be charged for having to provide that to the system. • So the argument could be made in the other direction — that they are overpaying once a sprinkler system is installed if they are paying the same rate as everyone else — if it includes that requirement. Melissa Ahern: • So that was my question — are sprinkler and non - sprinkler buildings paying the same base rate for domestic? Nathan Beals: • I am disappointed that our Utility Billing people were unable to attend today. • I will try to get some answers from them for our next meeting to make sure those are or are not included in our current rates. And for some answers to that. • To continue, there were a couple of questions that came from Joey at the end of the meeting last week -LL- is Public Utilities in a budget deficit — no we are not. 39 16I i B7 �+ August 19, 2010 We are meeting all of our rating requirements that are needed, so we're not in a budget deficit. • Unaccounted for water loss was also asked. I double- checked with our finance people and the $160,000 is actually $200,000 — so we're looking — instead of $750,000 — about one million dollars in unaccounted for water loss to answer your question specifically. Chairman Varian: • Per fiscal year? About one million dollars in unaccounted for ... Nathan Beals: • Yes. As I understand it. I hope to get the UBCS and Tom Wides back here for the next meeting to be able to provide some more to that. Melissa Ahern: • And that's total including leaks, breakage ... ? Nathan Beals: • Unaccounted for water. Yes. David Dunnavant: • I think the follow -up question has established there is not a budget deficit, but is there a budget surplus? Nathan Beals: • I don't know the answer to that. I can ask that question and bring it back or, hopefully, have them with us. Chairman Varian: • You are winding down your fiscal year there's only about a month and a half left in your fiscal year. • It is 11:00 AM. • For our next meeting, is there information that we request of Staff? Melissa Ahern: • I have a Planning Commission meeting so I won't be here.. Chairman Varian: • The next Subcommittee meeting is on August 27`h at 3:00 PM. • Paul and Nathan — I'm moderating this --- I'm not supposed to have an opinion - but I'm also on the Industry side as well. • I think all of us we understand where you're coming from — but we have to balance what we do for a living and try to make sure that this works. • We're not trying to be — fist fights or anything here. We're just trying to make sure that it's justifiable and we understand it. I believe that's where we are coming from. 40 1611 B7 1,4 August 19, 2010 • Whatever we do, we have to make sure that -- yes, you are customers and yes, it's the community which we work for — all balance out. Paul Mattausch: • I certainly understand that. I don't hold any discussion that we have in this room against anybody personally. My job as director of the Water Department is to do the best that I can to, number one, ensure public health. • Number two is to make sure that "he who benefits, pays." • That's my job. Nathan Beals: • One last item on the one - twelfth that we discussed — I can give you the FAC code number — it's 25- 30.465 and it is titled "Private Fire Protection Rates." David Dunnavant: • Since you mentioned the one - twelfth again, why would that simple fairness not have been addressed in the initial Billing Ordinance? • Is it only because we are questioning it that it is now being reconsidered? • And at what point will it be presented to the Commissioners to modify that rate? Nathan Beals: • I'll have to talk to Tom Wides and bring that back. B. Line -Size Water Meter Requirement on Fire Services (Not discussed) VII. Committee Member Comments: (None) Next Meeting Dates: August 27, 2010 — 3:00 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 11:05 AM. 41 1611 B7 August 19, 2010 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE UTILITIES/RPZ SUBCOMMITTEE c William Varian, Subcommittee Chairman The Minutes were ap oved by the Board/Committee on as presented , or as amended 42 N. C.IED EP it 2 2010 ()t,: cour;ty commissioners Fiala Halas Henning Coyle —..� Coletta 1611 August 27, 2010 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE PUBLIC UTILITIES/RPZ SUBCOMMITTEE Naples, Florida, August 27, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee — Public Utilities/RPZ Subcommittee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN: William Varian, DSAC Melissa Ahern, CBIA David Aldrich, CBIA Nick Biondo, East Naples Fire District David Dunnavant, DSAC Joey Hatfield, Imperial Fire Protection David Hurst, DSAC Blair Foley, DSAC Chris Mitchell, Waldrop Engineering Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office (Non - Voting) STAFF: Paul Mattausch, Director, Water Department. Nathan Beals, Associate Project Manager - Pub 'c Utilities Joe4reTlone, Manager — Utility Billing & Customer Service, Public Utilities (Absent) Tom Wides, Director — Operations Support, Public Utilities (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison Misc. Corres: Date: Item t Copies to: B7/ s 1611 67 August 27, 2010 I. Call to Order: Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:04 PM and read the procedures to be followed during the meeting. II. Approval of Agenda: Melissa Ahern moved to approve the Agenda as submitted Second by Joey Hatf eld. Carried unanimously, 8 -0. III. Approval of Minutes — August 19,2010: Melissa Ahern moved to approve the Minutes as submitted Second by Nick Biondo. Carried unanimously, 6-0. (Blair Foley and David Hurst did not vote since they did not attend the August 190 meeting.) IV. Public Speakers: (None) V. New Business: (None) VI. Old Business: A. RPZ Requirement on Fire Services [Note: for Motions - see Pages 12,13 (Amended), 17, 26, and 27 (Amended)] Chairman Varian: • Meeting Goal: Recommendations to DSAC - - -- meeting on September I" • DSAC will forward its recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners for the September le meeting • He asked for an explanation concerning the different requirements: fire flow for sprinkler systems versus fire flow for buildings * Losing 14 psi 0 40 psi versus 20 psi Ed Riley: • Requirements for fire flow for a building are based on the mains in the street • The County's Model and Ordinance currently specify the County will provide fire protection water at 40 psi • The Model is based on a 1500 gpm requirement • Does not match the fire flow requirements for all buildings — only a portion • A flow test is done on two hydrants — static and residual -- gauges are read • Flow is based on the PFl readings * P9a-r' H o Figure is calculated — it is not extrapolated or changed o Raw data is used to determine the fire flow for a building • Regarding the design for a sprinkler system: o A flow test will be done on the main the sprinkler system will be tied to • Figure is extrapolated o If the static pressure of the flow test is 70, it will be extrapolated to 50 1611 B7 14 August 27, 2010 o Therefore, static starting pressure for the sprinkler system design will be 50 psi (David Aldrich arrived at 3:10 PM.) • The reduction the 20 pounds — whatever the,per�tage — is used to reduce the residual pressure and also to reduce the PFD" .pow r%0iTo : • That gives you a new flow and a new set of criteria —a new static, a new residual, and creates a new hydraulic curve for the building • The sprinkler system will be designed function within that curve which is lower than the flow test done for the building — that's how the two differ • Currently, extrapolation is still done to 50 psi Nick Biondo: • Does everyone understand why it is 50 psi, even though the County is guaranteeing us 40 psi? • The East Naples Fire District deals with two different water providers: the City of Naples and the County • The City will only promise 20 psi • The County is going above that by promising 40 • We [Fire] have given the County an extra 10 pounds to play with • Paul Mattausch said the hydrants recently have been kept higher than 50, but it wasn't always the case and may not be the case in draught conditions • We don't know _,. we built in 10 extra pounds Ed Riley: • I met with Paul Mattausch and Nathan Beals concerning the 2008 Model for the County system --- the Model goes out to 2027 • They have requested Fire look at the Model to see if the design pressure can be raised from 50 to 55 • I agreed to look at it and take the Model back to the Fire Districts for their comments after I have reviewed the information, but the information was just presented to me and I have not had an opportunity to review it • When the 50 psi was put in place, it was based on some residual pressure and some static pressure throughout the system — in different locations on the County's system • This was prior to some upgrades to the system • The data gave five different pressure points for the County's sampling pressure — every hour on the hour, around the clock, seven days a week, year -round • There is quite a bit of data going back two to three years — but I was given a snap -shot of three to four days worth of data 0 9 times the County was below 60 psi 0 7 times one of the County's stations was below 55 psi • My concern in reviewing the "quick data" — I was asked to make a decision for this meeting which I am not able to do is the locations that were reviewed where there was a problem with the water supply in the past, I am not sure if they are what is being Modeled — or monitored 1611 B7 August 27, 2010 • I am would love to be able to raise the pressure so we are not extrapolating it down so low if the data supports it -- but I need time to go through it • I don't know if I'm going to have time between now and September 14`h • I don't know what I could do to speed things up Nick Biondo: • That's not the issue right now -- it's not why we're here — I'll be more than glad to look at that ... Ed Riley: • It's one of the issues because it's the argument against the RPZs — reducing another five pounds of pressure. • If we were able to raise our extrapolation up five — it negates the five off • I understand the argument — and I'm not necessarily against it if we can provide it but I can't commit to that at this point. • But I felt it [was] fair to let you know there is data there that I haven't had the opportunity to look at that may justify raising that extrapolation which would make the Industry happy in how you design your sprinkler systems. • I just don't know if I can yet — and if so, how much — based on whatever we have. • But I am going to look at that, take it to the Districts, vet it through that. process, make a recommendation back from them to see if we can change. Chairman Varian: • Was there ever a risk assessment — were there any numbers as far as what that percentage would add to your system by going to RPZs versus the Double Checks? • Was any kind of risk assessment done? David Aldrich: • Ed mentioned the assessment at the last meeting. • I have not seen an adequate assessment for the change — to put the RPZ on there versus the Double Check. Paul Mattausch: • I'm not sure I understand the question. Nathan and I are trying to understand. Chairman Varian: • In laymen's terms, right now, we have the Double Checks on these fire lines and part of this is you [the County] would prefer an RPZ to protect the system because the RPZ will protect it "x" amount better than a Double Check. • Is it ten percent better — twenty percent? • By putting the RPZ on there, how much more of a benefit do you get — other than it — • I think you said it dumps into the atmosphere if it fails ... 16 Ll7 � �At , 0 Paul Mattausch: • There is no Industry Standard even if you go to the certifying agencies that one device is "x" percent better than another device. • What we're looking at is the difference — you stated it — a Double Check, if and when it fails, fails back into the public water supply system where an RPZ — because of the way it is constructed — if and when it fails, fails to atmosphere. • And that's the difference. • There's no way to put — even the certifying agencies don't put a percentage assessment m -- risk assessment — other than back into the system or atmosphere — is totally opposite ends of the system. Ed Riley: • If you are referring to what I had asked — I talked about what was an acceptable level of risk and that is basically a political question and a cost assessment question. • We have DDCAs (Double Detector Check Assembly) that are in place — and we want to go to an RPZ. • What's the justification for it? What do you gain from it? • What's the cost analysis associated with it that shows that it was worth making this change and spending this money, i.e., I have achieved this goal. • What is that goal and how do we do it? And if we don't do it, what are the ramifications? • An acceptable level of risk is always — a perfect example is the high -rise retrofit sprinkler bill. We know that it saves lives. We know sprinklers work. It's going to save firefighters' lives in a sprinkler building if it's up in a high -rise. The facts are there. • However, the costs associated with doing that and impacting the people who lived in those buildings, the County Commissioners went on record that there was an acceptable level of risk to allow them to remain without sprinkler systems because it cost too much to provide that level of protection. • Somewhere along the line, I think — anything that you're going to go and spend additional money and raise the bar on something — there has to be some data that justifies that change. • I don't know that we've seen any type of data that would justify changing what we already do, spending the additional funds to do so, and how it impacts everything down the road. Joey Hatfield: • I believe that is where we are — I believe this whole Committee and everything we have done has boiled down to exactly that. • I believe that's all that we are going to accomplish today is to agree on a position and that's where I'm — • I don't believe there has been enough data that has been presented to this Subcommittee to warrant the additional cost associated with the installation of RPZs and the additional cost to the fire sprinkler systems in the buildings where those RPZs will be installed. 16 k-1. B7 August 27, 2010 (David Dunnavant arrived at 3:20 PM.) Blair Foley: • With the Detector Checks that are currently required and in place, is there any data at all about how many of them have failed as opposed to looking at an improvement or the material data that you are looking at? • Is there any record of Double Detector Checks failing and the system being contaminated? Joey Hatfield: • The question has been asked and answered. • The answer is that Double Detector Checks and RPZs both fail. When they are tested annually as is required to be done, they are repaired then, and the data that the Utilities Department receives back is always a passing result. So there is no data to bring to the table. Chairman Varian: • I think it is important to note that the Double Detectors are, under NFPA -25, are required every year to be serviced or inspected — right? Joey Hatfield: • Tested. • That standard is broken up into three main sections: Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of water -based fire protections systems. • Each one means something different: • Inspection is just a visual look at something. • Testing means actually going out and flowing water or taking valves apart. • Maintenance is ongoing lubrication of valves and things of that nature. • So it is a test of the back flow device annually as required. Blair Foley: • Therefore, it doesn't sound like — there has not been a record failure of a Double Detector other than if it was done during a test. Joey Hatfield: • That is correct. Paul Mattausch: • Just to clarify that -- if it is tested and it failed, then there is a record of failure — correct? Chairman Varian: • The question is Utilities — you don't get a copy — if it failed in the field, you don't get a copy. 161 l B7 a August 27, 2010 • You get a report that says it is working on July 301h (for example) when we tested it. You don't get the report that says, `this was missing and we fixed it.' • I think that was the question. Chris Mitchell: • Are there any requirements to have the back -up data if it failed? Joey Hatfield: • If a Double Detector Check valve fails, it is a requirement to repair it. Chris Mitchell: • But you don't have to enter in the record that it failed? Joey Hatfield: • No. Chris Mitchell: • So we just wouldn't know, simply, if it failed. Joey Hatfield: • You would have — if we went today and tested a back flow, if it failed, we might not necessarily fix it that day — we might fix it that afternoon or the next morning. Chris Mitchell: • But you are not required to document that it failed? Joey Hatfield: • No. Chairman Varian: • I guess being a "double," one could have some issues and not the other. Joey Hatfield: • That's the important part of this -- you are testing two checks and rarely do both of them fail — it is typically one or the other. • Which means that one is still checking and actually stopping the water from going back into the water supply. Chairman Varian: • Where do we want to go what do we want to do? • Do you want to make some motions and have discussions about them — or what do we want to do? Joey Hatfield: • I think it is time for Motions. 1611 B7 August 27, 2010 • I think we have talked this through pretty well. Does anyone have any more questions? I don't know. Chairman Varian: • Doesn't sound like it. Blair Foley: • I would like to see if we could get a position statement from Utilities just to see where they are coming from before we put a motion on the table. • Would that be okay? Joey Hatfield: • Meaning what? Blair Foley: • Paul and Nathan are always fairly quiet —just answering questions. • I would like to get their position on where we stand now and then we could entertain motions. It's just a thought. Paul is very good at answering direct questions, but I would like to get a brief summary of where he stands — if it has changed throughout this procedure of these Subcommittee meetings or if it is the same as it was when we were at the last DSAC meeting? It doesn't have to be anything long but I would appreciate it. Paul Mattausch: • I think that we still stand on making every effort that we can to improve the protection of public health with the requirement of reduced pressure principle back flow preventers and I don't think that's really changed. Nathan Beals: • We are trying to alleviate the pressure loss with the system pressure by not requiring it to be 40 psi and we are working with Ed and his group to try to talk about an increase so that the increase to 5 psi is offset. • To have that, we are also looking at — I know it probably won't happen before the 14th as Ed had mentioned earlier, but we are working toward that goal. Paul Mattausch: • I failed to answer the second half of that question. • We have recommended to change the current Ordinance to remove the 40 psi and allow the NFPA procedure, and we have talked about that. Chris Mitchell: • I don't want to lose sight, also, I think it is important if we're going to talk about the line -size metering — we also need to account for the 3 psi. • I spoke about this in the last meeting — we should really look at going to 58 psi which would then take the entire assembly -_ which would be meter and the 1611 B7 0, August 27, 2010 RPZ -- which would be the additional loss realized from the Double Detector that we have now. That's one. • Two -- I really don't know how we can give a recommendation on something when it is not completely answered. • If we are looking at doing an alternative of allowing a 58 -psi for the sprinkler system design, how can we then recommend or deny RPZs? • Theoretically, if you allow that 8 -psi to be accounted for in the additional pressure available to the system through the sprinkler design, you shouldn't have any up- sizing and you shouldn't have any fire pumps as a result of adding an RPZ or adding in -line meters. • For me, sitting on the Committee, I don't know how we can answer or give a recommendation on one without knowing the answer to are they going to allow us to use increased pressure. • For the site, I do want to separate the 40 -psi versus 50 -psi versus using fire flow versus using the Model. I think that is less of a concern. • However, if you were to take the same 8 -psi, or in this case, let's just say 10 and say you are at 50 — for site concerns, I don't know that I would have any heartburn over that. • You are really accounting for the site anyway when going from a 40 to a 50. • To be prudent and give a recommendation to DSAC, who is then going to give a recommendation to the Board, I don't know how that can be properly done if we don't have a key answer. Chairman Varian: • We have to talk about where we are today. Understand that Ed and Paul are talking and they probably will come up with something — Ed has to talk to the Districts that could take a couple of months. • I don't know. Nick Biondo: • This is the first that I've heard of it ..,. the first I've heard of it today. • There's no way I am making a decision — even close for my District on something I have absolutely no knowledge about -- it just got sprung on me today. Chairman Varian: • What we have to look at — this Committee — what we're doing today - is what the Ordinance states today. • If this happens, then maybe we can get back together. David Hurst: • I guess the question is — from this point forward — the Board is under the impression that this is some kind of imminent issue. • It sounds like we're making progress. • The question is from the Utilities standpoint, do you still feel like — or are you going to present to the Board that this is an imminent Health/Safety/Welfare issue. 161 B7 August 27, 2010 • Or is this a Health/Safety/Welfare issue that can be afforded some time for additional discussion? Paul Mattausch: • I understand you missed the last meeting — we discussed the human issue. • And that's not something that I ever communicated to the Board. That was a word that was used here by other people. That was not a word I used or communicated to the Board that this was an "imminent' ' issue. • This is solely to improve the protection of public health. [ Note: Excerpt from Page 222 of Minutes for BCC's July 271h Meeting: "Chairman Coyle: Okay. Now, our Water Department's concern is that backflow preventers are a safety measure? Chairman Halas: Health, safety. Chairman Coyle: And it's sort of critical that we made some decisions with respect to that. And if we improperly extend that decision and something happens and somebody gets sick as a result of unintended -- or backflow, then we could be liable. So, now, what I don't understand is, why does it take 90 days for you to develop a position on backflow preventers? ] David Hurst: • I did not mean to put words in your mouth, but I was at the Board's meeting. • The Board was under the impression that it was an imminent Health/Safety/ Welfare issue. Where they got that information, I am not sure. But I am positive that was the impression they were under. • So the question is -- would you be supportive at this point in time of going to the Board and asking for some additional time to discuss these issues — which sound like you and Ed and the Fire Districts can hash out as opposed to you showing up at the Board and giving some recommendation and they are still under the impression that the entire system is compromised. • Would that be — what would be your position on that? Paul Mattausch: • I'm not sure I can answer that — that's something that I would have to discuss with the Utilities Division Administrator — and that's not a call I can make here this afternoon. • That's certainly something that I would be willing to discuss with him and with the County Manager, but I can't give you that answer. to 1611 B7 August 27, 2010 Nathan Beals: • Can I make a possible suggestion that - -., based on the information today, you make a recommendation for DSAC with the caveat that if we can come up with an answer by the Wednesday DSAC meeting from the Administrator with Paul — to then either ask for a continuation or go from there? • I mean, I know that we can't come to an answer right now — I know that we can't do that and Chris [Mitchell] is uncomfortable, obviously, with — if there's a possibility of moving up m.. there's different feelings then. Chairman Varian: • I guess I agree with everybody. • DSAC is going to be looking at us and, of course, the BCC — based on what they wanted - something. • Granted, we will be talking between now and actually we can talk about this more at DSAC — but from this point of view, over the last couple of weeks — what we've heard — I think we have to make some suggestions or recommendations to DSAC based on the current Ordinance and this RPZ and the water meter issue. • Now, it could change between now and Wednesday, but I have a feeling that we need to have that. • That's my personal — but I'm open to what the Committee wants to think, also. Melissa Ahern: • Just to go back to the — what you were stating about the imminent Health and Safety -- • After the Board put a Stay on this — Utilities came back and put it on a Consent Agenda specifically for the purpose that it is creating a Health and Safety issue and we had to go back to the Board. • I think what David [Hurst] is saying that, in itself, created an environment that there is an imminent issue with Health and Safety. • I think at this point, I agree — we need to go back to the Board based on what we have today and if there is a possibility we can work this out -- then the Board has the ability to extend that time. • But, we present it as it stands today. Chairman Varian: I think that's how we have to look at it. We have to look at the current condition today — why we have been here for the last three weeks — Melissa Ahern: • I think the first thing the Board is going to ask is if we were able to get this why are we getting this at the 11 th hour? Blair Foley: • As a follow -up, are you guys planning to attend the DSAC meeting? m 161OB7 August 27, 2010 Chairman Varian: • Nathan [Beals] is not. Paul [Mattausch] is I believe — I saw an email. Blair Foley: • I threw that out there just — if we have an opinion on what we have on the table today — and they show up — because what we recommend to DSAC does not necessarily get formalized until the DSAC meeting. • So that's a possibility, too. • We deal with what we have before us today and then, you, perhaps, may have some additional information for us at that meeting Paul Mattausch: • I will be attending the DSAC meeting. Chairman Varian: • We have to stay on that. • We have to look at what we have today — we can't think about what could happen — we realize that, more than likely, we may come up with something — but we have to think about what our issue is today -_. and that's what we were directed to do. (Comment: off - microphone by David Hurst.) Joey Hatfield: • I will make one. • I will make a Motion: "During the Subcommittee meetings there has not been — it has not been demonstrated that the potential Health/Safety risk is immediate and does not warrant the installation of an RPZ over a DDC — in place of, or in lieu of, a DDC. " Chairman Varian: • A motion has been made. Is there a second? David Aldrich: • Second. Chairman Varian: • Discussion? Melissa Ahern: • Maybe change the word "immediate." Joey Hatfield: • I used that instead of "imminent." UN 16 [1 B7 August 27, 2010 Melissa Ahern: I don't think we're saying that a Double Detector check is fine regardless — not -- just the word "immediate" makes it sound like maybe in two months it is --- maybe in six months it is (off - microphone comments were made) • No, it's just part of discussion David Aldrich: • I am asking Joey to reformulate his Motion. Joey Hatfield: • This is an amended Motion from the one previously submitted: "In the course of these Subcommittee meetings, it has not been demonstrated that the additional potential Health and Safety risk is immediate, and it has not been demonstrated that installing an RPZ in lieu of a DDC is warranted. " Chairman Varian: • And the second agreed to that? David Aldrich: • I agree to that. Chairman Varian: • Any discussion? Any comments? Blair Foley: • Are we trying to come up with one Motion or are we coming up with several or — like a statement position? Chairman Varian: • I don't think we need a statement position — we need a series of — and that's why I think Joey is right — just to start with the RPZ — stay with that and then a few others. • Any other discussion? • Hearing none — all in favor of the Motion? Subcommittee: 0 "Aye. Chairman Varian: • Any opposed? (None) • The Motion carries [unanimously, 10 -01. IR 1611ABs7 7 2010 Chairman Varian: • What's next? Nathan Beals: • Our understanding is that we were supposed to bring the reduced pressure requirement back for the September 14a' [meeting] only -- on fire lines. • We — you can make your Motion, but we're not going to be presenting anything to the Board about meters on the 14a'. • Just to clarify -- we know we're not done with the meters — we still have a lot to talk about there, but we're ... Joey Hatfield: • That's the first I've — I didn't understand it that way. Melissa Ahem: • I didn't either. Joey Hatfield: • I thought these were two, distinctly separate issues that we were discussing in this Subcommittee and bringing recommendations for both back to DSAC. Chairman Varian: • I thought the same. Blair Foley: • I didn't remember it that way. • Per DSAC and per the Board, that it was an isolated issue that we were going to handle the RPZ issue first only and take that to the Board. • That's my recollection. Ed Riley: • I agree. • I think we were to discuss both, but our only recommendations immediately that had a time limit was the RPZ issue. • We can stay together beyond this next meeting to discuss the other issue but this one was imminent. David Dunnavant: • Looking at the entertaining conversation we had at the last Subcommittee meeting, we left off with the fact that there was a question about the appropriateness of the fee that is being charged - - -- which is continuing to be charged — it is not being told right now — and the last sentence I see here is that Nathan indicated he was going to talk to Tom Wides and bring it back. • The question was when are we going to adjust this to make it more equitable? Nathan Beals: • When you guys ask us the questions on Billing, we're answering them. 14 1611' B7 August 27, 2010 Now, the question to Tom Wides, he said he didn't want to make a change at this most recent one because there is this issue revolving around it -- and that is why we didn't make the change at the most recent- - I think it was last month — rate case that we discussed. When this is ironed out about whether meters will be included or not — is when they'll go back and look again is what he told me. David Hurst: • Is it reasonable to suggest to DSAC to allow the Subcommittee to continue discussing the meter and this Billing issue then? Chris Mitchell: • I actually think what we're doing with the meters is what probably should have been done with the RPZs — I think David's suggestion is spot -on - we need to continue so that you don't go in front of the Board when we didn't vet the issue out. I think that we do. • Before we get on the meters, I think that maybe we should close out the RPZ to make sure --- do we want to entertain a motion for a positioning statement or whatever we want to do with that -- so we can finalize the RPZ and we can spend the remainder of the meeting talking about the meter issue. David Dunnavant: • I thought we just did. Chris Mitchell: • I didn't know if you wanted a statement other than the recommendation is -- that we're not going to do it — or we don't recommend it. Nick Biondo: • I thought we just make a statement that we don't endorse it. Chris Mitchell: • That works for me. Nick Biondo: • I thought we were done. David Dunnavant: • The motion stated that we didn't endorse it as an imminent Health/Safety issue. • The motion itself did not even address the fact that not only is it — from our understanding and I'm sure Utilities has a different perspective — that it is an imminent or immediate Health/Safety issue. • But the impact of an RPZ down the line -- not only in cost but in fire protection systems — is really a big deal and it could become a real problem in the future. • There is, I think, legitimate concern that if it ever does go to a retroactive state — it violates almost all the sprinkler systems we have in buildings two stories or higher in this County. 15 161197 M August 27, 2010 • And then — now the Fire Districts would be -- and they would have to weigh in on dealing with lots of fire pumps to fight a fire. • So, you are not only dealing with the sprinkler system itself and the pressures, but mechanical functioning of that fire pump — which not only is a cost but is a further complication, it would seem to me, in the middle of the night to fight a fire. Chairman Varian: • Okay, then — the Motion that we agreed to was that it is not, in our opinion based on what we've heard — it's not an immediate Health issue. And that's where we left it. So, now, I guess we can move onto the next fact which is, actually, the RPZ issue itself whether we want them or don't need --- I guess that's the next direction we need to go in. David Aldrich: • I agree. I think if you lay this all out — first we have health issue. • Right now, I think we need to have a stance on the RPZ itself, followed by the meters. • I think we have two other issues that have been addressed — that were brought up here .._ is the spread of the availability charge out over all the commercial buildings. • That was in the Minutes last time „• if you haven't been here, you really need to read that -- Ed went into great detail on that. • I did not realize that if you had a fire suppression system in your building, you are penalized when you go to flush your lines. • If the guy next door — who is going to tap into the hydrant — he has the availability as well, but he's not paying for any availability of that. • I think the other there is that you have a double charge because the guy who is paying on his monthly water bill — I believe there is an availability charge for fire as well. I know there is for residential and I believe there is for commercial as well. Chairman Varian: • That would be tied to the meter, too, as well. • That's the revenue issue. David Aldrich: • That's true — but I think right now — but right now if you're billing for availability and they are also paying on the monthly water bill for the availability, they are getting charged twice. • I think you are creating a class- action situation in Collier County to be honest with you. • I think we need to look at that. • The last one I think we need to address — if you have an engineer who designs your system and you know you have to have four flushes a year or whatever your system requires — then do an annual charge for 5,000 or 25,000 gallons „.T 16 1611 g7 August 27, 2010 whatever the true usage is and the owner of that building should have an annual charge for maintaining that fire line. That's a true usage charge. Availability is a totally different, separate issue and I agree with Ed — that needs to be — I think if you look at it — that would be a revenue source. Everyone is participating in that and they are not paying for it. You have a select few people who are paying for it. I think the wrong people are paying for it. Chairman Varian: • I agree, but that's part of the water meter issue. David Aldrich: • And that's why I put it at the end after the water meter. Chairman Varian: • Let's talk now about the back flow preventer. You have a Double Check and an RPZ. • Right now, we do RPZs some of the time and Double Checks other times -- depending on whether there are Master meters, or whatever else goes on. • The Ordinance — the recommendation from Utilities is that RPZs will go everywhere regardless — if I'm getting this right. • There is an issue with the Industry — especially with fire sprinklers — if that happens, there will be additional costs for building owners putting in sprinkler systems — pipe sizes, possible fire pumps — stuff like that. • That's the other side of the issue — why do we need to do the RPZs when we are doing the Double Checks. Ed Riley: • I'll take a stab — I would like to make a Motion: "This Subcommittee has not been able to determine — or there has been no empirical data submitted to substantiate the requirement of an RPZ over a Double Check Valve Assembly and, therefore, we cannot support the requirement to install an RPZ in lieu of a Double Check Valve Assembly." Chairman Varian: • The Motion is on the floor. Is there a second? David Aldrich: • I'll second it Chairman Varian: • Discussion? I7 1611 87 August 27, 2010 David Hurst: • I would like to add somewhere in this process the fact that we are discussing this issue and I feel like we've made some progress in terms of mitigation and that we need more time to evaluate — so the Board doesn't feel as if we're going in and just putting our foot down saying, `No, we disagree.' • It's `We disagree with qualifications that could be addressed given the coordination that we currently have.' Ed Riley: • I think that would be a different, a separate Motion. • And then I'll explain why. Chairman Varian: • I also agree. • In the presentation to DSAC or to the BCC, that that's included — if it's not in a Motion. • Right now, we have a Motion and a Second. • Any other discussion? • All in favor of the Motion? Subcommittee: • "Aye" Chairman Varian: • Opposed? (None) • The Motion carries [unanimously, 10 -0.1 Ed Riley: • For discussion: As it relates to the last issue, with regard to ongoing meetings to try to establish what the extrapolated fire flow may be, we can inform DSAC and the Board of County Commissioners that Utilities has recently provided some documentation that ma X justify changing the way fire sprinkler systems are designed and the extrapolated flows are figured. However, it is going to take some time and we recommend that we be given that time to analyze the data and come to a conclusion as to if we can raise the pressure allowance in the design criteria. • I think it's important that we don't hinge decisions now that go to the Board to make a decision on what they're going to move forward with — it's imperative that we don't send a message to the County Commissioners at this particular time who will be making a decision on the 14th on how they're going to go with an RPZ, that they feel that there isn't a resolution that's going to happen that's going to justify RPZs. • Because we don't know that yet. 18 1611 B7 -1, August 27, 2010 • I won't say `justifies' an RPZ but lessen the impact of an RPZ on existing systems. • We still have an increase of costs, we still have testing that you have to do, you still have flushing required annually — all of those things — it's still out there. • But we may be able to mitigate some, or all, of the increase to the fire sprinkler systems through additional review of the Model that the County currently has. • We just need to have adequate time to make that determination. • I don't think we want to allow that type of — I don't want the County to think that — yes, that's going to happen — and they feel comfortable and `we're going to do RPZs because they are going to figure that out.' • It may not come to where we are able to make that — give that extra seven or eight pounds based on that data. • It's great to say that we recommend, and I certainly do recommend, that we stay together and discuss the RPZ issue and especially the 50 -psi extrapolation for fire sprinkler systems. • I think we need to get our stuff together, do the analyzing, and bring it back to say either we can or we can't and let you guys know what that is. • Then if you wish to change your mind on an RPZ, they can go back to the County Commissioners at that time and recommend a change. • Right now, based on the information that has been submitted and from everything that we've looked at, I think the two Motions that have already been made should stand. • In neither case can we back it, based on the information that was provided. • It is not a Health/Safety issue, and they haven't given empirical data to show that it is justified to go with an RPZ above the DDC. • I think as a policy projection from here forward, we can say that we're willing to look at it and Fire is to work with Utilities to try to raise that extrapolation to offset it based on information that is being submitted. • I can't guarantee anything, but I think we should look at it. David Dunnavant: • The one thing that I hear in the discussion at this point about continuing the conversation and the need to — but by the time Ed and Nick get with all their Fire Districts and get this resolved by the time Utilities considers a Rate Study to determine the appropriateness of charge -- there are projects out there that I think are being charge inappropriately and it's going to stand until this gets resolved. • We're not talking about being able to resolve this in, I think, another thirty days. There are too many parties involved and too many issues. • It seems to me that we should present a request for a tolling of the billing — something — you have projects that are paying for fire water right now that it seems like - -- even at the end of the conversation at the last Subcommittee meeting — it seems that even Utilities acknowledged there wasn't a real basis for the amount being charged in the Ordinance currently and it needs to be reviewed. • Meanwhile, these people are paying the full boat on fire water -- whether they use it or not. 19 16f1 B7 August 27, 2010 a At some point, we have to talk about the appropriateness of the 5,000 gallons in the Statute which is — Utilities has a contradiction even within their current rate structure for domestic water on the 5,000. a 5,000 gallons is the first -block cutoff for a 5/8 or a3/4-inch meter. a The first -block cutoff for an 8 -inch meter is 450,000 gallons -- significantly different. a So now you have an 8 -inch meter that runs 5,000 gallons and all of a sudden, they take the full availability service charge which I am still trying to understand appears as if it should be t /12t of what it is. a I am concerned that this discussion to get to this next step is going to take the better part of this year and maybe into next -- and meanwhile, you have people out there paying what -- from all indications are -- is an extreme amount for fire water that's really not being used for fires at this point. a And, still, if a house fire goes — they are not paying anything additional on their bill. a Nothing is making sense here and I guess I am just trying to understand how we get that resolved. It's a conflict. I think we have to state it's a conflict between what Utilities has in place right now and what, I think, Industry and we're saying is appropriate. a I know the Board would like to believe we could just have this resolved in three Subcommittee meetings and it would all be done. It's not happening yet I'm trying to understand the timing of correcting it and how the people who I think we'll find have paid an exorbitant amount for the availability of fire service water since at least the implementation of the 2009 Meter Structure — how they get put back whole — if they ever do — for how long we have kept over - charging them. Chairman Varian: a Is that a suggestion? I don't know if we have that authority to make that suggestion to DSAC to the BCC — I have no idea. David Dunnavant: • Or — we've got to at least state — I think we do have the ability to state on the record that we think there's something amiss here and that there are parties being penalized unfairly in this County. Melissa Ahern: a Maybe in part of the Motion, we ask the Board to put a Stay on the availability charge until this is resolved. a It's not a motion - just a question. David Hurst: a Are we done with the RPZ? Chairman Varian: a I don't know _._ I'm going to ask that, too. 20 1611 B7 August 27, 2010 David Hurst: • We've talked about the wording and the negotiation ... Chairman Varian: • We have approved two Motions — the Health issue and that we have not seen enough empirical data to justify an improvement to it. So those two have been approved. David Hurst: • What I touched on — the next question is the discussion of extending the duration of what's the Motion going to be to the Board ,-- to say we need more time? • And do we not do that here? Do we do it in DSAC? • Or does this Subcommittee make a recommendation to DSAC to do that subsequently? Chairman Varian: • We make the recommendation to DSAC and DSAC goes to the BCC with their recommendation. • The only reason why we are hug up on the RPZ issue is they told us they wanted it back on September 14` -- so we need to come up with something by September 10. • They [the BCC] want to hear from us by September 14th and our DSAC meeting is September 151. That's why we had the time restraint on the RPZs. • I know you were at the BCC meeting — it didn't sound like they wanted to give any more time at that point. I don't know if they would We can certainly ask for it if all parties agree to it. There is no reason why we can't ask. David Hurst: • That was the point of my question to Paul • Paul's impression of this is that it is an imminent issue is he going to make that claim is that the argument that we're going to have to face or are we going in saying we all agree that this can be discussed at a future date -- or discussed further. • That's what I'm trying to understand. Blair Foley: • I think we could have— what you are talking about — a motion combined with what David had as Motion #4 and if you want to put one together that we are working with the Industry —just because it needs to be dove - tailed into a period of time that the Board says — everything can't work that way. • I think we need to bring that to DSAC and DSAC can make a decision whether they think that's prudent to bring to the Board or not. • I also think we need to bring something to the Board to say that we have had some progress in that area — otherwise, if we — in my opinion, because we have — there is work that needs to be done it just can't be done in this timeframe. 21 1611 g7 August 27, 2010 • I think that is important. David Dunnavant: • I'm afraid we're going to appear unable or wishy -washy to the Board. • The Board asked for a direct statement on whether this is a Health/Safety issue. • I think this Subcommittee feels it is not. Utilities, I believe, will still present that it is. • We've got to — I think — present a statement that says, "Based on empirical data, or historical data, we don't have Health/Safety issues." • Could there be an improvement — fine. • But then, as soon as you talk about why wouldn't you implement the most safe back flow in the market, that rolls into because the cost to Industry and the general public exceeds what we understand, in any capacity, the safety benefits are. • The Board wants to know -- do we have safety issue out there or not? • And we can be unequivocal on that we have to be -- or you're going to have RPZs. So we have to unequivocal that we do not understand it to be a Health/ Safety --- • I don't know where it goes — the Board is going to make that decision because I think Utilities is still going to present that it is. • But there's a reason why we don't want to implement a safer option — because the negative impact, from our perspective, far exceed the benefits achieved. Blair Foley: • I think it's important from an engineering perspective -- that at least the issue they discussed possibly having with the Fire Districts still continues — because that's important — with calculations on the ground. • I'm concerned that if we don't discuss it — or put it on the table — that it may stay where it is at today regardless. • At some point in time, we may still have RPZs without the relief of the additional psi. Joey Hatfield: • I think the two Motions are pretty clear — that we have a solid position on where we stand today. • I have a question — can we continue this Subcommittee without the Board's direction? Chairman Varian: • Yes, we can. Joey Hatfield: • Then what we're trying to resolve right now with the Board is whether RPZs are justified or not. • Is that the only question that's going to be presented to them? 22 1611 87 August 27, 2010 Nathan Beals: • Yes, we are presenting to rescind the Administrative Stay on the RPZs. • We're not bringing up meters or anything. Joey Hatfield: • So, if that's the only issue that we're going — that DSAC is going to address to the Board, I think we've stated our position on that. • All this other discussion that we've had here can be continued in this Subcommittee if we so choose to continue the Subcommittee. • And that can be explained to the Board that all these other issues that we are trying to vet out — we can continue to vet those out in the Subcommittee — but today, as it stands, we don't believe that RPZs are justified because of the cost. • Is that a strong enough position? David Dunnavant: • Yes, but as we stated -- the Board wants to know whether they have a Health/ Safety issue and we're stating we don't understand it to be. • That's their first. • But to sit there and say RPZs are still on the table — Utilities has not modified their stance one bit on this — and I don't think with continued discussion, they are going to. • We have to determine and present to the Board and be convincing that if it truly is a negative impact to the community and to fire protection we've got to get that to them. We need to get it to them sooner as opposed to later because they are not going to understand — it took several of us and we're in the Industry -- several meetings to really pick up on these issues. • Over the course of a Board meeting, non - engineers and people not in the Industry — they're not going to get it and Utilities hasn't waivered. And nothing we've said has gotten them to waiver. • We've got to state — and I think we have — that it is not an immediate Safety issue but unless we come pretty directly with a stance against RPZs and I think we have the ability to do that right now - -- and this whole, again, another Iast minute proposal thrown in just clouds the issue. • We need to be able to state there are reasons and costs that we don't believe are beneficial to the citizens of this County to implement them. • If it wants to be brought up again and there's a new proposal on the table on how to implement them, to me that's a whole other issue. I don't think we should mix and match it right now because it really looks like we can't make a decision. Ed Riley: • Just one quick comment on the clarification of working with the Utility Company on the 50 -psi issue — this still boils down to whether or not we feel RPZs are appropriate ... not that we can offset the impact, pressure -wise, by fixing another section. • One thing to understand is we currently have issues with trying to make some systems work today with the extrapolated flow. 23 1611 B7 August 27, 2010 • If, through our negotiations and looking at this -- and say I was able to go up to 58 -psi and I offset the 8 -psi required by the RPZ and the meter, we haven't changed the impact of to the sprinkler system positively or negatively. • We still have issues with a lot of the systems making them work that are out there currently. And that's based on past experience that we've had in the system designs and not functioning and why we've had to do an extrapolated flow to make sure we have a little bit of cushion. • But the bottom line is — to make that change _ the only thing you change is to keep the design stagnate. • We're spending money on devices and you're doing other things — and without the meter — forget about the meter for now — but the maintenance of that — which is a higher cost to maintain an RPZ than a Double Detector Check Valve Assembly and the parts are more expensive, too. • When you go into that process — what did you achieve? All the money they put into the system in upgrading the system — so now we can say we can give you a little more in your design - so now, over here, the people who paid for that didn't get a benefit from it. They got a new RPZ. But does the cost of that offset the DDC? • I don't think it equates. And the bottom line — no matter what comes out of this — if I was able to offset that pressure, do you still feel comfortable — would that change your mind on the RPZ issue? • I don't think it would because I don't think what's been presented either as a life/safety issue or empirical data to show that you need it •- for any other reason and the cost associated with it is still there — you don't have as big a cost with the downstream stuff but it would still have a cost on existing systems if we were to retrofit. • Bottom line is — I don't think — in my mind, it wouldn't change whether or not I backed an RPZ or didn't back an RPZ -- I don't think it's been justified. And I don't think that pressure differential changes my mind as to whether or not I could support RPZs and I think that's basically what you're looking at. • That's the only difference we're talking about — is if I could increase that sprinkler design a little bit more and that brings us back to what we have today — yet there's been a huge increase in the system that, really, nobody got to take a financial benefit from. • What we're doing is putting another device in there that costs you more again — the cost to build the system up — to raise this but we're going to offset that by spending more of your money to put another device in. • In my mind, I don't see that five or eight pounds of pressure will change my interpretation of whether an RPZ was justified. • I think you need empirical data and you need to prove that it's a Health/Safety and Welfare issue — and I don't think that's happened. • If you leave it to those parameters, I don't think an RPZ has been justified. Nick Biondo: • Thanks for clarifying that, Ed, because the first time that I mentioned changing the 58 wasn't going to change anything — that's exactly what I meant. 24 16 1 111 B7 August 27, 2010 David Burst: • I feel the general consensus is that we all feel like the RPZ is not required --- not necessary. And that it would be an added component to the system with a benefit of some measure that we can't quantify at this point -- I think what I've been talking about is trying to find some way to mitigate for that - if and when it does get approved. There is a distinct possibility that the Board will still put it through and we if have not found a way to mitigate for that we have missed our opportunity. • I understand what you are saying - the numbers don't add up - it's a wash. • But I think we need to do something and if we don't - then we could end up out there being inside a negative as opposed to being in a wash. Ed Riley: • I agree with you and we're going to continue to work - whether it's through this Subcommittee- if it disbands and we didn't move forward - the Fire Districts and I would work with the Utilities Department to see if there's any justification for us raising that number. • I don't like the number being arbitrarily low -- if it's not justified then I want to raise it. • It doesn't matter what happens in this Subcommittee right now - I'm going to continue to work with them to see if I can change that. If we put it in place based on their information - the data that we have - and if the Fire Districts and my office can meet with them, understand what's out there and justify raising - we're going to do that. • But understand the other thing here is that if we are able to raise it and if RPZs don't get in place your system designs are easier to make - you'll save money on your sprinkler systems when they are installed. There's a win there, too. • We are definitely going to look at whatever they are providing to us today and see if we can justify increasing things - that threshold. • Even if we don't use it to mitigate - if we're able to raise it, we're able to increase the efficiency of the systems and the flexibility of the design of the systems to reduce costs. That's another mitigation you have to look at, too. Nick Biondo: • But it took this meeting ... until today to come up to this option - that we possibly have numbers that we could look at to raise that. Blair Foley: • If we can continue these meetings - and just for a little bit of history - back when the Utilities Subcommittee was first started years ago - it was a pretty effective group of people where there was a lot of input from Industry -• a lot of issues were vetted and then that went down hill. Pretty soon there was just a meeting that you guys had and there was no longer a Subcommittee with DSAC and then it just became small group of (quote) "insiders" - it wasn't vetted - a lot of issues weren't properly vetted from my perspective. 25 1611 t 1 7 August , 2010 • I think this group getting together is really helpful and if we can continue to do that — I believe that these issues need to be continued to be discussed and my concern is v if the discussions will peter out after the Subcommittee disbands. • 1 think that a strong front and two strong Motions are probably the way to go — the way to go to DSAC and say this is what we believe — that there was no empirical data and therefore it's just Motion "A" and Motion "B" — and we continue to meet — whether with the Board's blessing or not to try to address some of these other issues -- because I have never been a big fan of Modeling on arbitrary numbers — it becomes kind of a big joke. • As an engineer, you like to make it work in a real case — in a lot of instances, you're not — you are just making the numbers go -- and then it just becomes a shell game. I have never liked just using numbers. • My opinion is that we take the two [Motions] forward m-- we wrap it up — but we continue to meet — whether it's with the blessing of DSAC as a Subcommittee of DSAC or as a separate group because I believe this time is valuable. Melissa Ahern: • I think the DSAC recommendation needs to provide a couple of points -- Number One: it is not a $700 cost difference — that has been repeated throughout — and it was stated at the last Board meeting — that it goes far beyond that. • The other thing I think the Board needs to understand in discussing this Life /Safety issue is how many people are actually being affected. It's been brought up several rimes people inside communities are not protected. • When you start to narrow it down, Utilities is essentially saying that they are trying to protect people but do we only consider a certain percentage of the County worthy of protection? How many homes are we talking about? • The other thing is if Ed [Riley] can work with the Districts and get this to work - if by chance the Board decided to move forward with the RPZs — if we go back to them with information, saying that this is available and we can reduce costs to businesses going forward — I think it would be difficult for the Board not to endorse that — especially when we're participating in an Economic Recovery Task Force and working with the EDC ( "Economic Development Council ") with these subgroups and trying to get businesses to come to Collier County and we're trying to address over - regulation that's preventing and making Collier County not attractive to people — I can't imagine that they would not embrace this. Joey Hatfield: • I would like to make a Motion: "This Subcommittee is to be continued for the sole reason of two issues. One is to address and vet out Utilities' request to have in -line meters installed And the second is to determine a fair and equitable rate structure for fire lines " Chairman Varian: • Is there a second? 26 1611 B7 August 27, 2010 Nick Biondo: • "Second for discussion." David Dunnavant: • The discussion is that premise is based on the fact that fire lines should have a charge unless the appropriate charge could be nothing because it is already in the service charge to all the communities now. • Everybody has fire service right this minute. • Utilities is not running at a deficit. • So why does the fire line have to have a charge? Joey Hatfield: • My thought is because it has one now. • We get rid of it if we don't discuss it. • I agree with you that it should go away in its entirety --- there should not be any. Ed Riley: • An amendment to that is to discuss the appropriateness of the charge for fire lines. • In other words --- we're not saying is it appropriate to charge for fire lines. Joey Hatfield: • I'll make that amendment to the Motion. • The Amended Motion will read as follows: "This Subcommittee is to be continued for the sole reason of two issues One is to address and vet out Utilities' request to have in -line meters installed The second is to discuss the appropriateness of the charge for fire lines " Nick Biondo: • "Second. " Chairman Varian: • Is there further discussion? • Hearing none, all in favor? Subcommittee: • "Aye" Chairman Varian: • Opposed? (None) • The Motion carries [unanimously, 10 -0.1 David Dunnavant: • The continued discussion of this — I find it a little disconcerting. 27 1611 B7 August 27, 2010 • Nathan and Paul attend. • If we ask for proposed changes - they are going to talk to Administration or Billing or someone. • It seems to be a discussion among ourselves on the way we would like to present it. • These guys sit back - as I said,- Utilities has not modified their stance at all - they typically, it seems to me, use our discussion and come back with a curve ball or a new proposal to try and get through it. • I don't know how to go forward - I am not sure that we are truly interacting with Utilities and getting any movement from them. • I know we are establishing, I think, points that we want to go forward with but we're not - I don't feel that we're getting any form of agreement in the negotiation in this at this point yet. • Maybe we will at some point. Chairman Varian: • Don't forget - this is going to DSAC next week. David Dunnavant: • I am just trying to envision continued meetings. • It just seems as if we are going to continue in the current pace - I'm trying to understand an end game and how we resolve our issues between the parties and whether they do get resolved. • Because, right now, it's still running. Ed Riley: • I agree with David. • I would expect in future meetings on the water meter issue to request and get better data to justify the fees. • There have been several questions that have been asked in the past that have not been answered yet. One of which was, I had asked if the construction and the maintenance of the existing system - you had made the statement that it was - the system was based on fire flow requirements, that's how it was designed. • I asked if the fee structure, including your base fee, included all of those costs associated with that construction and maintenance. • Your initial response was "yes," and then you were going to check to make sure that was the case. • That's a key hinge -pin on who is paying for what. Anybody who has potable water is paying already - that system is being paid for through those base meter fees. • To add another meter and a fee for a fire protection system which lessens the impact on a water purveyor would be unfair and an additional charge - it's a double charge because the property owner already has a potable water meter and they are already paying for the infrastructure and its maintenance through that process. 28 1611 87 August 27, 2010 • So to add another fee because they attached that fire line would be unfair and that's the kind of stuff we want to know — how is the rate structured — how is it figured — what was included in it? • We want to see how that was actually done. Those are the kind of things that we want to get back from Utilities. • Whatever questions -- specific information that we can then analyze and make comments on — so far we haven't gotten that kind that's why we made the two recommendations we have. • Utilities hasn't provided the documentation — there's no empirical data to support what it is. David Dunnavant: • I think the discussion with Nathan [Beals] was there hasn't been a rate structure done on fire yet — there's a charge — but we've got to wait to get a Rate Study done to determine what an appropriate charge would be. • We have asked how was the original Ordinance for Billing on Fire established? Paul Mattausch: • I can't answer all of those questions. I didn't work directly with the rate consultant. The rate consultant did some work to establish the existing fees. • There is additional work that needs to be done .- we have acknowledged that. • In making sure that there is a use - "fair and equitable" charges for fire services. I agree with that. • The customers pay in their rates for fire hydrants that are located in the right - of -way in the street. • Right now, as it currently stands, there is a connection fee that the customers also have to pay in addition to paying for the availability of fire protection of that fire hydrant in the right -of -way. • Right now, there is no service connection fee at all for a private fire line. • The residential customer and those who are paying for metered services are paying both the service connection and the rate — the availability of the fire hydrant in the right -of -way in their rates. • The entity that has the benefit of a private fire service, right now, pays for neither. • I agree we have to find a fair and equitable way to come up with paying for the connection of the service and the availability of the service to the structure that has that availability. David Dunnavant: • I find it difficult to believe that a consultant did any form of rate study on a fire line and came up with the exact same service charge as the domestic line. • You pretty much stated that there was a consultant who reviewed the fire service requirements -- yet the Ordinance uses the exact same rates with the 5,000 gallon offset for fire as "domestic." 29 1611 87 August 27, 2010 Paul Mattausch: • One clarification — and we met about this last week - -- the residential customer pays for every gallon of that first 5,000 gallons. The fire service connection does not. Chris Mitchell: • I don't believe the statement that you said is entirely true, Paul, where the fire service customer doesn't pay. • Most often, its ancillary to a potable water connection — whether he has a 3/8- inch,'/ -inch, 5/8 -inch, 2 -inch, 4 -inch, or 8 -inch — the water delivery for potable purposes — he's paying that in that fee — he's paying the fire fee in that for the potable water delivery. • If he has a fire suppression system which has a separate fire main, right now, he's not paying on the fire — that is correct. • Ed's point in all this discussion was that if he's already paying for it on the potable water meter side — why does he have to then get charged a separate charge. He's got the same hydrant charge as his neighbor of the same meter size. • It's there - it's just different. • It's not that he came up with the exact same for the potable water ------ it's in absence of — they used the potable water meter sizing and that's what they are doing there. Joey Hatfield: • That was the point I was going to make. Nathan Beals: • I have one comment to add to that -- in the rate in the Billing Ordinance — in the Appendix — it states that it was determined that if more than 5,000 gallons was used, it was deemed as domestic use. • That's why they are billed the availability. • If that 5,000 needs to change, then we need to look at that. • And that's what we're talking about coming back and making sure it's fair and equitable. David Aldrich: • How much does domestic use pay for 5,000 gallons of water? What does 5,000 gallons of water cost? • As soon as the guy with the fire meter turns it on and flushes the lines, he has an $1,100 charge. • The guy next door who doesn't flush doesn't have a charge. • You have a charge for fifteen bucks for water. • The way these fees are shared is just not fair - I mean, that's the bottom line of how this has been going down. Paul Mattausch: • Let me clarify -- as soon as he turns it on, he is not charged. 30 16I 1B7 August 27, 2010 • If he goes over 5,000 gallons -- that's when he's charged. • As soon as I turn my faucet on at home, I'm charged. I'm charged for all my usage in that first 5,000. • On a separate, private fire service line, they are not charged for end usage until it goes over 5,000 gallons — unless there is no meter on it. David Aldrich: • I understand — but they're paying more than just for the water. • You are putting a fee out there of $1,100 for having the availability of the water. • You said last week that was not in place and David said he has already been charged for that. • Am I wrong, David? David Dunnavant: • That was correct and they indicated they looked back and that was an error on the one under 5,000. David Aldrich: • So my concern is — we have to get this availability charge vetted here appropriately because it doesn't make sense. • It's not fair to the guy who — next door — does not have the fire suppression system — it just doesn't make sense. • I think if you had a consultant obviously that consultant didn't talk to Ed Riley on the fire issue — this is the fire issue here. Blair Foley: • Our Motion was to continue these meetings to discuss these very issues, right? Chairman Varian: • Yes. Blair Foley: • It comes back to our DSAC meetings when we request information and, time and time again, it doesn't come before the meeting and they try to get us to make decisions. • The same thing as here -., these are difficult matters to resolve when there is no data provided. • So you can go back and forth all you want, but I don't think you will really get anywhere until we really get some information. David Dunnavant: • The answer to the question for the first 5,000 gallons is $11.80 — that's how much the 5,000 costs. • It triggers, typically on a fire line, anywhere from $700 to $1,900. 31 1611 B7 August 27, 2010 David Hurst: • That was really my question — 5,000 gallons is $11.00 — if you go over 5,000 in water on a fire line, it's $1,100 -.. is that correct? Chairman Varian: • Depending on the size of the meter. David Dunnavant: • $1,100 on an 8 -inch line. Chairman Varian: • We've made our Motions on the RPZs. • Now we're going to talk about the fees and that — I don't know if that is slightly outside of our realm, I don't know -- we're talking a lot about it. • I don't know the Utilities Ordinance like anything else, we can ask the question — we can bring it to DSAC — we can have DSAC make a motion on that. David Dunnavant: • I don't think that's right. • CBIA ( "Collier Building Industry Association ") took to the Board that there was a question about both the RPZs and meters. • Then Utilities presented to the Commissioners that the RPZs were an immediate health/safety issue. • I think both of them were always on the table. It is just that the RPZs got elevated because of health/safety. • I don't think that we are inappropriate at all in talking about the meters and the rates. Chris Mitchell: • And as a member of the now - disbanded Utilities Subcommittee meeting to DSAC, I think it's exactly what we were there for. • I have said it before who is watching the cupboard? If you disbanded the DSAC Subcommittee on Utilities, it really is just a discussion group — and I've said that at times it has felt like, `Where here's the Policy and what do you guys think about it ?' — rather than vetting the issues out. • So I think this is the exact forum — whether or not it gets carried forward on a specific RPZ/Meter Subcommittee the value of it is there. • It's the participation that's hard. • To me, that's what the intent of a Subcommittee for DSAC is. David Dunnavant: • As part of next Wednesday's meeting, there will be discussion about how and why that Subcommittee was disbanded. • The fact is DSAC is a 15- member Committee of which there are three Civil Engineers. 32 1611 87 August 27, 2010 When DSAC gets handed, at the time, a 3 -inch binder and is told: "Somewhere within here are the modifications for the year from the Utilities Committee." DSAC may be the conduit but it needs to figure out a way to get Industry participation such as are represented here to work with Utilities on their proposed changes and manuals. On DSAC itself, we have environmental engineers, architects — we're not going to be able to fight through all those things, understand the presentation, and make credible comments. We've got to get people who can work with us. Chairman Varian: • That's one of the reasons why it was recommended that it be disbanded. • It was disbanded before I --- I wasn't on DSAC at that point. Blair Foley: • We do need good data -- we've been asking about information for a long time on all the Utility issues. • You guys come monthly to DSAC and are pretty good about master planning but in order for the Subcommittee to be effective, we really need hard line data — otherwise, we can't really make decisions. Nathan Beals: • As I stated in the last meeting, on the July 21" DSAC meeting, I brought to the Committee the list of the recommended changes that we had discussed so far since the last update. • I said, "Here they are. Please attend our next meeting or provide comments to me by the next meeting so we can -- then it will be the way we've always done it. • But from now on, my intent is to bring every change to hear in a summarized explanation of the change and why we need it -- to discuss during "Utility Updates" [on the DSAC Agenda], and then it can be brought back again to our discussion group to then talk about. • I'm trying to make that change so it is less of a dictation -- "here's the policy" — and more of an open discussion. • I think in a lot of situations, it has gotten better in the past two years since this issue was brought up. Chris Mitchell: I would agree and I think the biggest disappointment is — it's tough for people to participate when you're in the crunch time and you can't sleep because you have too many projects — or you don't have enough projects — and you are trying to make a living. It's tough to participate. It takes people you know to encourage to participate and I must encourage people I know or else there's no purpose. You have to have the people there that know the Industry and know what they're doing to make informed decisions and recommendations. • That's the challenge we have. 33 1611 67 August 27, 2010 Chairman Varian: • I have one other question/comment. • In the Executive Summaries that have been going before the Board, there was something about being retroactive to the June 8`h meeting if they decide to go with RPZs. • There has been about a three -month period — permits have been issued and maybe projects are underway. • If that happened to be, I think there would be some heartburn from the Fire Departments that — all of a sudden - - designs are in and it is already underway and now an RPZ has to be installed on it — if the Board wishes. • As a Committee, we need to think about that — if they did say, "Guys, we don't care — we want an RPZ and we'll retroactive it back to June 8`h." • There could be some serious issues out there. Nathan Beals: • The retroactive to June 81h is intended to mean — we interpret it as — systems that have not had a Site Development Plan ( "SDP ") approved -- if it's been approved since June 81h, it needs to be retrofitted with the RPZ. • I've kept in contact with Craig doing Reviews and he says that, so far, until a week and a half ago, there have been two systems that have gotten fully approved and those had RPZs because of connections downstream. • We're keeping track of that. Chairman Varian: • Okay .-. I would hate to see if there were more — I know we're in a down market right now — it's not as if there were 40 in there to be approved. Joey Hatfield: • I know that we have one that has just been approved with a DDC. • I don't want to have to go back through the permitting process and pay all the fees --- and then you're talking about revising your systems. • I think it would be fair to this Committee and to the people of Collier County if this was effective as of the Board's date. Melissa Ahern: • If the Board approved a Stay and you have since been approved, they can't legally go back and make you re- apply. Joey Hatfield: • But that's what this is asking to do. • What they are going to present will be asking for that to happen. Melissa Ahern: • I think we need to clarify that with the County Attorney's Office. • The Board issued a Stay -- so anything that's approved, they can't go back after- the -fact and force you to re- permit and pay new fees and increase your costs. 34 1611 B7 August 27, 2010 David Hurst: • To me, that seems like it would be a big stretch to push that issue. Joey Hatfield: • Legally, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Chairman Varian: • We have our Motions which will be presented to DSAC. • You are all welcome to attend the DSAC meeting and make public comments and discuss with the other eleven members. • The DSAC meeting is Wednesday, September I" at 3:00 PM in this room. B. Line -Size Water Meter Requirement on Fire Services (Not discussed) VII. Committee Member Comments: (None) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 4:40 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE UTILITIES/RPZ SUBCOMMITTEE William Varian, Subcommittee Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board/Co ee on l 0 , as presented _, or as amended 35 a R a � 1611Fiala F- F IV D Halas P t 2010 August 4 Henning�� 0*9 Coletta MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, August 4, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in a REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F ", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon VICE CHAIRMAN: Andrew Dickman Michael Sorrell (Excused) David Bishof ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Susan Mason, Principal Environmental Specialist Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Engineering Manager Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist Misc. Cnorrrres- Date: v J —a�'A Item t I.�.! (t Ccoies to: 1611 B8, August 4, 2010 I. Call to Order Chairman Hushon called the meeting to order at 9:02AM. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Chairman Hushon noted there are two openings on the Council, one for a permanent member and one for an alternate member and requested any interested persons apply for the positions. III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Dickman moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Bishof. Carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of the June 2, 2010 meeting minutes Mr. Bishof moved to approve the minutes of the June 2, 2010 meeting. Second by Mr. Dickman. Carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences Chairman Hushon will not be present for the October meeting. Mr. Bishof will not be present for the August 11, 2010 Special Meeting. Jack McKenna was introduced as the new County Engineer who has assumed the position and will be officially replacing Stan Chrzanowski upon his retirement (in approximately 2 months.) VI. Land Use Petitions A. East Naples Mine — Phase 2 - Excavation permit EXP- PL2009 -616 Located in Sections 21 and 22 of Township 49 South, Range 27 The presenters were sworn in. Robert Duane of Hole Montes provided an overview of the Petition highlighting the following: • The project is located in the North Belle Meade Overlay west of Everglade Blvd and South of Golden Gate Estates. • The site is "receiving lands." • The project is exempted from typical County environmental requirements and the presentation is for informational purposes. • It is Phase II of the mine, located easterly of Phase 1 and comprises 259 of acres of land, a portion of the lands controlled by the applicant. • There is an existing mine , controlled by another party, located north of the proposed site. • The access to Phase I mine is from 5th Ave SW and Phase II will use this access until the Wilson Blvd. extension is completed in the future. • Wetland mitigation for impacts on the project site are proposed for 450 acres of other lands controlled by the applicant. 2 1611 August 4, 2010 Mr. Dickman requested clarification if the item is in front of the EAC for "informational purposes" as reported by the applicant. Susan Mason, Principal Environmental Specialist noted the EAC is required to review the "Excavation Plan" application as there is over %z Million cubic yards of excavated material involved in the proposal. Summer Araque noted the EAC may recommend stipulations to an approval if necessary. Geza Wass de Czege, President, Southern Biomes, Inc. provided an overview on the 448 acres of wetland mitigation noting there are 8 separate parcels with fencing as required by FDEP. The parcels will be retained by the property owner and subject to conservation easements. The project will also require 1000 Panther Mitigation Units still under investigation, but will comprise approximately 203 acres bringing the total mitigation for the project to approximately 650 acres. Under questions from the Council, Mr. Duane responded: • Phase II is divided into two sections with the easterly section adjacent to the Natural Resources Protection Area (NRPA) to be an "excavated buffer." • The proposed extension of Wilson Blvd. would bisect the two sections associated with Phase II. • There are existing County water wells located on the parcels controlled by the applicant. • Collier County Public Utility has been granted easements on the property for the wells. Frank Feeney, Hole Montes noted: • The FDEP permit allows for a maximum excavation depth to 70 feet below the surface or the "confining silt layer." • The excavation setbacks are 50 feet from the proposed Wilson Blvd. Corridor and 100 feet from the County wells. Discussion occurred on any potential environmental impacts of sediment that may fall off the trucks onto County roads and possibly runoff into drainage ditches. Stan Chrzanowski noted there is a County dust Ordinance and the project's egress road will utilize a type of onsite large rock corrugated structure (or similar device) in the roadway to assist in "shaking" sediment off the trucks before exiting the site to minimize the transfer of the material to County roadways. Dr. Hushon requested clarification if the littoral zone associated with the reclamation of the site will be planted with appropriate vegetation. Geza Wass de Czege noted the FDEP does require re- planting of the littoral zone. 1611.88 " August 4, 2010 Mr. Dickman moved to approve the excavation plan subject to the following: 1. The recommendations contained in "Environmental Advisory Council Staff Report Meeting of August 2010" — • The petitioner commits to cooperating with Collier County and the SFWMD in the studies for a regional stormwater retention /detention master system in the Golden Gate Canal and North Belle Meade area. • The applicant must obtain all necessary State and Federal permits for the mining. Without a second, the motion was not considered. Discussion occurred on the document provided with the application titled "Conditions for East Naples Mine Excavation Permit Phase II" which contained 14 additional conditions. Robert Duane noted the applicant is in agreement with the proposed conditions. Dr. Hushon moved to accept the Petition subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant abide by the recommendations contained in "Environmental Advisory Council Staff Report Meeting of A ugust 2010" • The petitioner commits to cooperating with Collier County and the SFWMD in the studies for a regional stormwater retention /detention master system in the Golden Gate Canal and North Belle Meade area. • The applicant must obtain all necessary State and Federal permits for the mining. 2. The 14 additional conditions proposed in the document referenced above. Second by Mr. Bishof. Bruce Anderson, Roetzel and Andress, Attorney for the Applicant noted the 14 conditions have not been formalized with Collier County Transportation Department and expressed concern with them being part of the approval. Condition #2 was removed from the motion of approval. Motion carried unanimously 3 — 0. Break: 9:55 am Reconvened: 10:06 am VII. New Business A. Watershed Management Plan Update and Summary of Existing Conditions Mac Hatcher, Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section provided an overview of the "Watershed Management Plans" noting: • The objective of the Plans is to protect and conserve the County's water resources by studying historical discharges in the area, reviewing areas to improve water quality, protecting structures from flooding and protecting the County (drinking) water supply. 4 ': io Rio F""s 0 August 4, 2010 • The anticipated adoption of the plans by the Board of County Commissioners is December of 2010. • The first component required updating the Big Cypress Basin hydrologic modeling and identifying the existing conditions within the watershed for water quantity /quality and habitat value which has been completed. • A modeling study will be used to set performance standards and recommended improvement projects. • The final stage will be to develop a comprehensive Watershed/Management Plan for the County. Moris Cabezas, PBS &J Project Manager provided an overview of the tasks completed to date including the evaluation of the existing conditions within the watersheds. The study concentrates on the top priority watersheds and development of watershed management plans for the watersheds including Cocohatchee River, Golden Gate Canal and Faka Union Canal. Peter Degolean, PBS &J provided an overview of the parameters of the Existing Water Quality and Modeling Study for the watersheds. Preston Manning, PBS &J provided an overview of the water budget analysis for the watersheds. Dave Tomasko, PBS &J provided an overview of the water quality assessment portion of the studies highlighting: • Water quality analysis indicates some water bodies in the County do not meet FDEP standards kor water quality in the areas of Dissolved Oxygen, Copper, Iron, Fecal Co rm Bacteria and chlorophyll. • If the water quality does not meet FDEP standards, they become classified as "impaired." • "Impaired Systems" becomes subject to the FDEP, Total Maximum Daily Load (TDML) Program. • The TDML Program requires the jurisdiction to develop a long term management plan to reduce the levels of contamination. • Some of the "impaired" findings may have been a result of obtaining samples in close proximity to roadways or docks which may not represent the actual water quality of the system; or some systems such as wetlands, rivers, canals by their ecological characteristics may have differing water chemistry. • One function of the proposed Collier County Watershed Management Plans will be to develop water quality and sampling standards approved by FDEP unique to Collier County bodies of water. • The concern is attempting to achieve the uniform FDEP Statewide water quality standards may be difficult for all bodies of water as they may be unique in their naturally occurring water chemistry (i.e. the conditions naturally occurring in canals may differ from a freshwater lake, wetlands vs. rivers, etc.) Moris Cabezas provided an overview of the remaining tasks including creating performance standards and proposed goals for the management plans, develop recommendations for future projects affecting the watersheds, recommend alternatives to proposed projects (if necessary) affecting the watersheds and develop the final Watershed Management Plans. 161 1 98 August 4, 2010 Chairman Hushon requested Staff to: • Contact FDEP throughout the process and provide the status of the Management Plans. • Upload today's presentation to www.collier og v.net website for public viewing. Mr. Dickman expressed concern a major component of the proposed plans involves "methodology issues" and revising State standards that are currently applicable to the County. He recommended a Peer Review take place on the proposed water quality standards proposed in the plan. He requested clarification if it is the intent of Staff to incorporate portions of the Plans into the EAR (Evaluation and Annual Report) process and recommends the Plans be implemented in portions of the Land Development Code (LDC) and Growth Management Plan (GMP) as necessary. Moris Cabezas noted the Plan is not intended to reduce a State standard, rather provide a standard more applicable to specific site in Collier County if necessary. The FDEP already has a policy of approving "Site Specific Alternative Criteria" where the conditions of standards may be altered by the FDEP if warranted. In addition, one aspect of the plans is to examine the current County development requirements and recommend revisions to the GMP and LDC. Speakers Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida noted the Water Quality Staff of the Conservancy will be reviewing the documents /plans for comment. She noted the State Water Quality Standards are in place to protect the health and safety of citizens. She recommended the County focus on meeting the State Water Quality standards, not revising the standards to site specific areas and requested the EAC to direct Staff to develop the plan to meet these standards. She wants to ensure the Comprehensive Planning Department is involved in the Planning document. As an example, the Plan may have a direct impact on Growth Management Plan, Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 6.2.4 where it currently does not regulate wetlands impacted by developments that are not part of a watershed management plan. Mac Hatcher noted: • Due personnel cutbacks, a Staff member from Comprehensive Planning is not assigned the management plan. He intends to have someone assigned this week. • The Plan will require adoption by the Board of County Commissioners who may recommend Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan amendments. Any proposed amendments will be completed through the normal GMP /LDC Amendment Cycles. • Any proposed revisions to State Water Quality Standards will require extensive public hearings and be vetted through due process. • The FDEP does not allow the reduction of a Water Quality Standards for any water bodies currently meeting the FDEP standards. Co 1611 August 4, 2010 Emilio Robau, Resident noted the planning is heading in the right direction and requested clarification if a major focus of the plan will be to recommend infrastructure projects to improve water quality. He noted this may be a large expense for the taxpayers. Moris Cabezas note he plan is in the stages of identifying the existing conditions of the watersheds. And ecommendations for infrastructure projects have not been developed. VIII. Old Business A. Update members on projects The proposal by Miami Dade County to convert a parcel at the Jet Port site to an ATV Park has been withdrawn. IX. Subcommittee Reports None X. Council Member Comments None XI. Staff Comments A. Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Workshop August 11, 2010 Susan Mason reported the workshop will be held at the BCC Chambers with the Councils review limited to "environmental matters." XII. Public Comments None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 12:17 PM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL a rman, Dr. Judith Hushon These Minutes were approved by the Board /Chairman on / / 0 , as presented , or as amended _V-11, . 7 T240 16-11 B8 August 4, 2010 1199 FOREST LAKES RECEIVED AUG 16 2010 aoard R)f courry commissioners I. Call to Order 11. Attendance 111. Approval of Agenda Fiala Halas Coyle _ ROADWAY AND DRAINAGEW44.". ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 January 13, 2010 Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — November 18, 2009 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget — Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard, Chris Tillman/ Malcolm Pirnie V1. Old Business A. Drainage Structure between MSTU and downstream Golden Gate Structure — AMIL Gate VII. New Business VIII. Public Comments IX. Adjournment Next meeting is February 10, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Misc. Cones: Date: —Item #: Copies to: 16h1 89 FOREST ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE M.S.T.L1. LAKES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 February 10, 2010 Agenda I. Call to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — January 13, 2010 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget — Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard, Chris Tillman/ Malcolm Pirnie VI. Old Business A. Gordon River Maintenance Project (Storm Water Dept. Project) VII. New Business VIII. Public Comments IX. Adjournment Next meeting is March 10, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 1 161 lI FOREST ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE M.S.T.U. LAKES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 March 17, 2010 Agenda I. Call to Order II. Attendance Ill. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — February 10, 2010 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget — Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard, Chris Tillman/ Malcolm Pirnie C. FY -2011 Budget Review -Mark Isakson VI. Old Business A. Gordon River Maintenance Project (Storm Water Dept. Project) VII. New Business VIII. Public Comments IX. Adjournment Next meeting is April 14, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 1 I& W W W W W W W W V OD Cl• A W O CD 00 V ab N A W IJ O to 40 V W N A W W O tO O0 V 0 m A W N� X -1W w �-7o4-I 0-j � 0.0 r- acnZm-D02mtom ry - jzOO -•�-4 MZZ— coca�O'DD I � �miO2Mw:M 'mail -ms6 �Omx>w >MMmms mm ZOOZZ.,ImO m >�-- iCZCn�m��< -,�; Zv,�7lfzz �cnzD eM�mmmtACn y_ �� x�Mgmxm mm; rn ��- <tnvnzrnC -", -i-� O v_ m cIm zcn. oo m- NOC1��N� CCmOC�imaoDZ�m��zn�0 y��7oT�y�za� �Ozz -► 1"�4n� �zZ0.�0 �cpnDm li x n- nA� .jpo n ZCl) C Arncn 2M 4m �-1z mDD00 CC z�� p��D Z -<— m to —rn -�z a0;0a((A n<��3�C)nz 00 zz n'D n c m Z o Y 3 rn C m Z O O D C D� z z O� O xzm n �� r-Wm 0Om cmmnm; O m CA oo ZMn �"1m m -4 T nlb0 p -4 4049 N 4A 49 4040 4A 40 iA 40 49 40 40 40 49 49 in 4A 4A 4H 4A 49 40 40 4fflM 4A 4A 4A 4A 49 40 -69 49 4A 4A 416 Ph, _ ... �. qq pQ pQ OAS � pp 00 ODAtW 4NtW <OStO AApipN iiio(DN 001 N�_cOpA C"4 CA) 01 QOOpD ppOIV V VO I�Cp1N 00000 OOOSOO pOp IN0N0 O SOO vO S O O S S O NON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N O N ppO O 0 p0 0 Q O Q O Q Q O Oa 0 0 0 0 0 0' " O O O S O O' O# O O' , O' 0 0 vv0 vvOvv vvOO �O-� 0000 000 40 4A 40 40 40 00140 Ga 4A tEA d9 I 4n en H) Efl an cn (n fn <n cn En <n yf (n !w 46 4A 4A 40 4A M W " 4A 4A ?% O 3 161165 (Jl N 0 co A CT — cn m 0 o 0 o 00 40 4A 4A 4A 4A 4A .0% 10 4A 4A 49 4A Aw =Q N wwm N w w O O 0-► -4 N t $owco - �Cw1fS00 AV 0Ut N V-,j p QO v O co 00 N of wcoCTw 00) cn 0 0 01 0 � OV0co t00 co O-►Oc �O N co OD O O O co O N 4A 4I► 4A 4A 4!► 4A N N CO CI1 �m m o �1 y -s < �(c(o(o(Q o m m� 3 o0m a a (D m m a R ? ? ? ? ?� ?��' 33 m m (C1 (D V QD Cn O .�. '� -n (n to ,a N W N 0 V W W 00 W m A Cr N 1 D �1 cy � ?y m :3 O CD m o ca (c = 2 m PP 0 ' LO O A N ccoo O (Jl N 0 co A CT — cn m 0 o 0 o 00 40 4A 4A 4A 4A 4A .0% 10 4A 4A 49 4A 4A 4A 4A 4A14AI4A W► 4A 40 to 4A 4A 4A i CA i set 0cc-4 W 4A 4A 401 Ot SQvO O O iW COOD ► �i Q) N �V 0 -; ( W V W i aOs N CA.Cn N T OD 4t 0 V W 00 co OD C. 0)O O O A w C7QVW 0+U000ONOOO ' IA N V O--� ► 0tNO 1 0'S OA D N cA + a A A W m N 00 S - W OS 4L-4 0 ON D W S N O N 0 0 0 Ov O 0 O N V o om w m mcdOzi n�101 m wmo mg a9ommKn9oimoo Ki m� = m''oam0 m�a 21s a m ' i �� 33 � fF r00? 333333333333ivm2- �D�mm = C40m a 1 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.3 >> m m�, a°,^ UM Cn CL CL g mm cccncumcccucnc m00mm y, a, =0�3� =a m oO 3 2 m � 7 y C y y v d(D C1 O m cr y 7 7 cfl (G (O (D (D t A A AA A A A AA A A AA�,AAAAAAAAAA.1aA A A A A Al Al A oca cn ? ca croSnSn� ,S"c>,cn4nwoY,cn�cpw5"(n (>,cacro� 511 0 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i v v i i i i i cn w( .0 apppp i C ep C�p t��? � �p 'S �l wQ 'S � Q Q Q � p i 0 C-4' i Q OD1W K) K) � V CO D W CTO"'G>A+ tmOA W N��OODpD W A � CA W c 0) co m m 01i(a c m m On ON 7 7 7 3 7 Aw =Q N wwm N ;; " coww O O 0-► -4 N t $owco - �Cw1fS00 AV 0Ut N V-,j p QO v O co N O Cq -� N O OD ip. A of wcoCTw 00) cn 0 0 01 0 � OV0co t00 co O-►Oc �O N co OD O O O co O N 4A 4I► 4A 4A 4!► 4A — 0 7 7 7 7 a» M 49 " 4A 4A 4A 44 40 44 4!9 4A 4A 4A 4A fA 4A �m m o �1 y -s < �(c(o(o(Q o m m� 3 o0m a a (D m m a R ? ? ? ? ?� ?��' 33 m m 11011,0 W i N -� O �_ 3. w y ?�Z ? ? y y N Q 'T1 ?i ?1 n n m T 4A 4A 4A 4A14AI4A W► 4A 40 to 4A 4A 4A i CA i set 0cc-4 W 4A 4A 401 Ot SQvO O O iW COOD ► �i Q) N �V 0 -; ( W V W i aOs N CA.Cn N T OD 4t 0 V W 00 co OD C. 0)O O O A w C7QVW 0+U000ONOOO ' IA N V O--� ► 0tNO 1 0'S OA D N cA + a A A W m N 00 S - W OS 4L-4 0 ON D W S N O N 0 0 0 Ov O 0 O N V o om w m mcdOzi n�101 m wmo mg a9ommKn9oimoo Ki m� = m''oam0 m�a 21s a m ' i �� 33 � fF r00? 333333333333ivm2- �D�mm = C40m a 1 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.3 >> m m�, a°,^ UM Cn CL CL g mm cccncumcccucnc m00mm y, a, =0�3� =a m oO 3 2 m � 7 y C y y v d(D C1 O m cr y 7 7 cfl (G (O (D (D t A A AA A A A AA A A AA�,AAAAAAAAAA.1aA A A A A Al Al A oca cn ? ca croSnSn� ,S"c>,cn4nwoY,cn�cpw5"(n (>,cacro� 511 0 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i v v i i i i i cn w( .0 apppp i C ep C�p t��? � �p 'S �l wQ 'S � Q Q Q � p i 0 C-4' i Q OD1W K) K) � V CO D W CTO"'G>A+ tmOA W N��OODpD W A � CA W c 0) co m m 01i(a c m m On ON 7 7 7 3 7 m am =Q >> m N � > > �� cn cn U2 <t4 S OOOOOOOOOOOOOD ( N(D -n a N CO ym . N (O -( nu Qom 0cN � zDzD�z.D•0 ' g1ww c w z�Dz„z�D0 cOn Z>i°0 D��mC93Iin iD a DD5 �S- d3 C��or�O��?a�m V C" C17 C1 0 Cn C" V C." C" OD — 0 7 7 7 7 a» M m �, (am ' o m z•m m m rn w m m m m �m m o �1 y -s < �(c(o(o(Q o m m� 3 o0m a a (D m m a R ? ? ? ? ?� ?��' 33 m m !to (� ni S m- a m -� O �_ 3. w y ?�Z ? ? y y N Q 'T1 ?i ?1 n n m T .�. '� -n (n to ,a N W N 0 V W W 00 W m A Cr N CO D �1 cy � ?y m :3 O CD m o ca (c = 2 m PP O V O W 01 m cT A In M 3 m N ? C y x m o�N O N I C -0 v 4, 4, QQ �9 $Q rwOz � 0cN � zDzD�z.D•0 ' g1ww c w z�Dz„z�D0 cOn Z>i°0 D��mC93Iin iD n z> Oit D=rV B e Q w V T V C" C17 C1 0 Cn C" V C." C" OD N co w 66 V V V V O 0 f0 CT Cr + W 00 O O (i1 (n En r�J cn <n 4n cn E� Fn to fn to 'En to 'C�) Fn W cn Cn 'n fsn cn G� cP <» fn <n N O CYO N _--� -• O A N � N N W 'J N �J N M W J O L7t .ji @ 3 i V N CD m O A �! m A m N W V N O A O c i CD CO Cn w .m m Cn Cn Cn A Cn cn N W 0- -� 00 (T CT -� (T N D O CD A Cn O O O (b N 6) A O- O co O OD co N 6) PP 0 ' 5 3 O O ? 0 0 0 CD --1 m W W O N O O O -P -� N W W O (D O O O O O O W OD W O CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD O O N O O O !+ N iA 40 49 40 40 40 4.9 40 4A 164 49 49 4A 4A 4A 40 40 4A 40 4A 4A 4A 4A 49 4A 4A 4A 4A . 4A 4A 40 " 40 4A 4s 49 t! N i N N -+ Ci T i W W N N CO OD V OOONDtNOODN(OCOOA A co 01 M m IA O N O OLCA A � -i (O ► OD V N OD OD OD CAMOOOAAOoiA,GJOD W CA ACTCAWOD 00V O0V OO -IA V ODi V i 0)8000D V V W CiA TO � OOD 0 S NW 7pp 0 V 0 N00DN -4 000S9SSOOSST O SOS(OOcOD 0009) , 00001 SSOO' 01 m cT A In M 3 m N ? C y x m o�N O N I C 16d? g9 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 5, 2010 TO: Tessie Sillery, Transportation A FROM: Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissione RE: Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee As you know, we currently have vacancies on the above - referenced advisory committee. A press release was issued requesting citizens interested in serving on this committee to submit an application for consideration. I have attached the applications received for your review as follows: Robert H. Jones 1002 Forest Lakes Poulevard D Naples, FL 34105 Richard J. Barry 1316 Forest Lakes Boulevard Naples, FL 34105 Please let me know, in writing, the recommendation for appointment of the advisory committee within the 41 day time -frame, and I will prepare an executive summary for the Board's consideration. Please include in your return memo the attendance records, for the last 2 years, of the applicants recommended for reappointment. Please categorize the applicants in areas of expertise. If you have any questions, please call me at 252 -8097. Thank you for your attention to this matter. SF Attachments 0 is 161jt B9 Board of County Commissioners 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252 -8606 Fax: (239) 252 -6406 \' plication for Advisory Committees /Boards tome YhOne: 239 - 649 -5692 le: 34105 Fax No. 239 - 649 -8414 Business Phone: 239 - 649 -8692 —e-mail address: riones657nn,comcast.net Place of Employment: Retired General Contractor State of California Board or Committee Applied for: Forest Lakes MSTU Category (if applicable): Example: Commission District, Developer, environmentalist, lay person, etc. How long have you lived in Collier County: Years: 16 Months: 0 Are you a registered voter in Collier County: Yes X No Do you currently hold public office? Yes No X If so, what is that office? Have you ever been convicted of any offense against the Law? Yes No X If yes, explain: Do you or your employer do business with the County? Yes No X If yes, under what circumstances? Would you and/or any organizations with whom you are affiliated benefit from decisions or recommendations made by this advisory board? Yes No X If yes, please list the organizations: NOTE: All advisory board members must update their profile and notify the Board of County Commissioners in the event that their relationship changes relating to memberships of organizations that may benefit them in the outcome of advisory board recommendations or they enter into contracts with the County. Do you now serve, or have you ever served, on a Collier County board or committee? Yes X No If yes, please list the committees/boards: Forest Lakes MSTU Advisory Committee 1611 89 . Please list your community activities (civic clubs, neighborhood associations, etc. and positions held: Quail Run Golf Club — 3 year term Forest Lakes Condo Assoc. 2 year term. Current Chairman - Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU. Education: Graduated from Huh School in New Castle Indiana University of Arizona, Continued Education in Erlam College Richmond Virginia — Business Law. Experience: Construction background in Golf Courses /Communities (Fla., Calif., Tenn.), Chairman of Leisure Product Systems — Nevada US Based Viking Sauna Company Building Industry of N.A.H.B (National Association of Home Builders). Please attach any additional information you feel pertinent This application should be forwarded to Sue Fllson, Executive Manager to the Board of County Commissioners, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112. If you wish, please fax your application to (239)252 -6406 or e-mail to suefilson(d- ollierrov.net Thank you for volunteering to serve the citizens of Collier County. • FROM :BARRY FAX NO. :2396495323 ib 11 e5 Mar. 04 2010 06:04PM P1 Board of County Commissioners 3301 East Tamiami Trull Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252-SW ]Par. (x39) 252 -6406 for Advisory Committees/.Boards Rose Pwmr. 23?— 6 lr,- Sj, -43 Hose Addrcs= /q /` Eo Rem%~ �i,/f �4,,Z .. up code: O YJoS Far: No. i Aw= Pnoee: xytf -307-"o 6 e-ma address 70+C d2 coacar. A Peace of Easployment: �� yr- a l f srr/ Board or Committee A fos : I"'O JP �rI'f' �,.- aAra✓age Category wapplicabi%-L lximpk: ComodWou nbdrict, eMViroameabfiitt, by person, etc. How bag have you INed in CoMer County: Yens: ,'gZ 'Months: Are you'a . c&bxod Poser la Cosier County: Yes V/ No Do you curreatty hold pubMe o>nee? Yes No -ZIf so, what is that offim? Have you ever been convicted of any affeae agabrst the Law? Yes . _ _ No If yes, explain; �097vu or your employes' do business with the County*. Yea No V"*'^U , under what circumstances? ''Would you anWor a�rgauindous w ft wbyw you are ati3aatted benefit from decisions or recommendations parade by Of* adv rd? Yea Mq if yes, please Hot the orguHizations: . � advisory board members sat update tbofr proft and a� tin: Board of Cmuty Commissioners t that their ,rekdo whip changes relating to �s of erpub adoss tact may beseitt them in V0� of advbory board reonmmadations or lacy renter h to coutraret7t with tae County. ',R* you now serve, or bm you ever served, on a C Mer County board or nom el tee? Yes No yes, pkwo Hot the com aittesslboaeds: lo, B9 FROM :HARRY FAX N0. '23964 %323 Mar. 0410 00:05PM P2 Please list your community activities (civic clubs. id"bo *Q" MOOdm"005, eta. And posNow held: Please ottwcA� oxT �wo�e yae jarl pm,dw� ?>afi �pdoaefoar eheerlit Gsjwts+s�+�inl[ m a`Me Bye Mweeaser i0 the BVWd of OMN& C XWNWW ers, AQOX aW Tsmim i 71rag A*hw, PI .34112 Ifym K'h, pbuw dxyour gp�pBpotiOw rio {?39)257 -6106 O/'! -wall to a.I tRnk'3ror� for vdwrfe�afwa IEV sa►+s flee C�Yiztird Of Co�lTferyGauwb: SUNN�411U�1 rT 4411 p� O 0 bb % 1N0 1N0 SS + S V 10 fDbf0b w O }+ O N fNT N N N � COO SSOO OcO (OD. R {071 N NNp 1pNp � +p 1� O 00 cc W W O N N O O O O W W NCO qp t O O O O O O O 001 O 01 # N N + yN�1�O1 ((ppN�4O11 apap Np�pO O O OoNO Sp S O O O O 00 Ogg O g g 00p0 00 O w jVV q fn 01 N HIMQ$ O CIO W W N O O 00 w IL O ~cc 0Q o �i �m N to y�C �� a >aa T ii T mS Tm pA Xy Ono 1 C N W V V p T c .1 to z A 3 -� a• $$ 11 2 m W m mlmz O vii y 0a ZTW m z �Z �.� TT p�i 0 z i Z Z ^�j 00 y y 1.,... III — co N FF:U c"m zm ; �:. v 0.. c '� Z m - N VN1S N SO O y � gg to 3 A g � g S 0 M 9 W U f+0 N N O 3 m m 5. n f 9. a a N � G ,I I �QO pV O O O v v IO 'yO pW1 8J 1� O O O Ov V � ap COCA O lOO1 O �1 m 000075 u o q�q O O O O O N N N b Cocos a L 0 J U� o �p�p 8O SO q V W O 4411 p� O 0 W + A + 8S o a V }+ O N fNT N N N � COO SSOO OcO O R N O O O 00 cc W W O N $S o 00o a oo pA 11p0 O NCO qp t O O O O O O O 001 O 01 L 0 J U� o �p�p 8O SO q V W O 4411 p� O 0 '�a•O +S f0 O V V ��ee O N N Q 8S o a oo w oo w75 O N fNT N N N N N N N N N N N N COO N N N N N N N N N q�41 + 00 O coo N O O O 00 cc W W O N $S o 00o a oo (A CD 4pN OO 0 N �O0 INO + + p 1611 N 10 N N N 0 t0 10 N N N N 10,010 N Yi N iD N N N 0 10 10 N 0 N C O 7000 O N fNT N N N N N N N N N N N N COO N N N N N N N N N N N N Coco O O S S O coo O 00 cc �14p p N m +p1 OqO 11p0 O O O O C-1 yOO O O jOO S O q+ S. � pOp V O 0 �Op fOT + p 0 0 S OoNO Sp S O O O O 00 00 Ogg O g g 00p0 00 O w jVV q fn 01 N 00000 O CIO 0 CIO O O O O O 00 O 4pN OO 0 N �O0 INO + + p 1611 N 10 N N N 0 t0 10 N N N N 10,010 N Yi N iD N N N 0 10 10 N 0 N C O 7000 O N fNT N N N N N N N N N N N N COO N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N n N N W W pW W W 00" W Wq+ p W� WW 000 w s WW W W w W W W 11p0 O �tp0 + N 401 OD O O O+ O C O + + S p O 0 0 0 401 O tm0 10 pOp V O 0 �Op fOT + p 0 0 S OoNO Sp S D > S WW pS Ogg O g g 00p0 00 O w jVV q fn 01 N O S O V N W 0NN1 a w N pVbO J 0O O o O O O O 8 O O O O NO 2 y to y�C m a >aa ooZ e 9 ;�D � D D D Zoo D g 2� 10 o 111, o C N W V V 0 .80 N O O M A 3 -� a• v 11 2 r mlmz O vii O O O z O �.� TT p�i 0 z i Z Z pp S S y 1.,... — co N fll O 0 0 poG) ; �:. v 0.. c '� m - N VN1S SO O y D gg to 3 A g g S o ;0 m co co r N r (Nq ! O O S O O O � O fill $� a P 0 Np i11 W N N+ N ap O O W q N pw� N O �1 0000S e1 COO 00 o 00 log b $' oo O QQ o S 0 0 DDDDD O♦ O 00" O + N 000 w s S Fd 10 p S p V g p O O it D > eQ� e8Q Om00 pNep O O f 00 O w jVV q fn 01 N O S O V N W 0NN1 a w N pVbO J 0O O o O O O O 8 O O O O O qN O O O O O O O S a >aa ooZ e 9 ;�D � D D D Zoo D g 2� 10 o cc o C N W V V 0 .80 N O O M O Y V O y J. t o N N V N N+ N V N N R� o o 0 0 0 00800 0 o o V N + OOO O♦ O 00" O + N 000 w s S Fd V g v 4w1 Om00 pNep O O f 00 O pO+pp 4p4pO1 O O V O CO N O S O 41 IAO O O W pON O A fNTO SO O V OS p p b1w a ooZ e 9 ;�D � D D D Zoo D g 2� 10 o cc o C N W V V 0 .80 N O O M O Y V O y J. VO O O O O O O O O O O O O ♦ 0 pp S S O S 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O O 0.. O O yv CA N j VN1S SO O 0 OS gg g p 88 g g r N r (Nq ! O O S O O O 000 O O COO O O O 0 A N W 0 0000 0 0 0 + V O p 001 O r ONO A OSO COO O 0 pr 40 O 4pN1 8V 0 0 0 0 SN 0Np4p11 Wq ++ pQ CA p 88 0 0 Ott + pQO o O 0 O Oy 0 O O 0 O n � 7�O�j 8N 4WD 8N 8O qpW 4Np1 l qpN 8+ 8O INpO t811 +8 80 tN811 00 00000 O O�'he;0 O O Ott 000 O 00 O O 000 O O 000 O �1Q tNp qO N O O W S L,§ + S O S 8�0 S N OH N O + Ifi Sr T t o N N V N N+ N V N N FFF o o 0 0 0 00800 0 o o v 3 + N A fNTO SO O V OS $ b1w a ooZ e 9 ;�D � D D D Zoo D g 2� 0 2° o cc o Y V J. VO O O O O O O O O O O O O O x yv CA N j VN1S SO O O OS O Xo Z �C D B9 ►�- 0 � d + N W N ; W � C w V O_ O S 0 N N W + 0 mm 161 ww10 O Bg O O O W w w O X 8 N NN �.Vr r twi pO S tO/ � O O _ Goo co WO 1 �1 +I f0i1W Op 0 1 Q p QW m 1ya1��1Nw N OO1pp SS OrO+1pp S1pp S O S 3 100 10 1N1�1 N2� 1002 0 1 NN 10 0 f2 NNN to I H24 m W N 1 1pp+1pp 1�02p2•�� 0 0 W O O 1 S O OI% 474) QQ�� O A � to o� mm m� pN� pNpp Y N 7766 r 0 11 00o A 8 y� 8 W iVT 1.1p 0 0 0 Ap f 2 2 mom � S A 0z i N � 0 R m i W 010 m S O � Gi � n yYr 1111 9 HIT[ w mm 161 ww10 10 Bg go 81 1 w w O X 8 N NN �.Vr N V ��sSN S O R N r d +: ;er 3 d m _ M m U W mQ 201 102 O W W N V 3 Si b1 m P e w mm 161 ww10 10 Bg go 81 1 w w O 222 SOS 8 N o 0 0 p 01.�11 tO/ � O O _ Goo WO 1 �1 +I f0i1W Op 0 1 Q p QW 1ya1��1Nw N OO1pp SS OrO+1pp S1pp S O S 100 10 1N1�1 N2� 1002 0 1 NN 10 0 f2 NNN to I H24 o �7 W N 1 1pp+1pp 1�02p2•�� 0 0 W O O 1 S O OI% 474) QQ�� O A � to o� mm m� a �A 4g NH 7766 Xco m 76 4 O Ap f 2 2 mom � 0z m 010 m n m m _ M m U W mQ 201 102 O W W N V 3 Si b1 m P e G 11 01 O J. O O .1. O .1. O O N H wW W 1aOp a � ppw�1 ppo� O O = W N N 0 OI O O O O V V y SO O O coo 0 0 0 Is 0 Va i O • 0 r �p t2 O OOO AA p01� ++pp TTTT OO p p� K KKo �pp a oo 000 Ooo 0000 V V S r }o ao 00 8 eoo 000 880 � A ys +O+ 01 W pN 1p +p A O �OO SS Oro OO O 8SOQ >DD ee Ell 8 p+ O + N pW V + fD po Rj O O p N O 2 D O 2 D g Q 0 N wy C w o iv.1 1WV2 w o 0 0 + A A A A 0 1 N+ � 1ya1��1Nw N �1 p+P�o qq O qprq 0 0� (pN W W N 1 1pp+1pp 1�02p2•�� 0 0 W O O S O S S O O W O J. O O .1. O .1. O O N H wW W 1aOp a � ppw�1 ppo� O O = W N N 0 OI O O O O V V y SO O O coo 0 0 0 Is 0 Va i O • 0 r �p t2 O OOO AA p01� ++pp TTTT OO p p� K KKo �pp a oo 000 Ooo 0000 V V S r }o ao 00 8 eoo 000 880 � A ys +O+ 01 W pN 1p +p A O �OO SS Oro OO O 8SOQ >DD ee Ell 8 p+ O + N pW V + fD po Rj O O p N O 2 D O 2 D g Q 0 N wy C V S r }o ao 00 8 eoo 000 880 � A ys +O+ 01 W pN 1p +p A O �OO SS Oro OO O 8SOQ >DD ee Ell 8 p+ O + N pW V + fD po Rj O O p N O 2 D O 2 D g Q 0 N wy C O 2 D O 2 D g Q 0 N wy C 1611 99 FOREST ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE M.S.T.U. LAKES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 April 14, 2010 Agenda I. Call to Order 11. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — February 10, 2010 V. Approval of Minutes — March 17, 2010 VI. Transportation Services Report A. Budget — Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard, Chris Tillman/ Malcolm Pirnie VI. Old Business A. Gordon River Maintenance Project (Storm Water Dept. Project) VII. New Business Vlll. Public Comments IX. Adjournment Next meeting is May 19, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 1 1611 B9 FOREST ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE M.S.T.U. LAKES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 May 19, 2010 Agenda I. Call to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — April 14, 2010 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget — Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard, Chris Tillman/ Malcolm Pirnie VI. Old Business A. Gordon River Maintenance Project (Storm Water Dept. Project) VII. New Business Vill. Public Comments IX. Adjournment Next meeting is June 9, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 1 1611 B9 FOREST ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE M.S.T.U. LAKESADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 July 7, 2010 Agenda I. Call to Order II. Attendance 111. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — May 19, 2010 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard, Chris Tillman/ Malcolm Pirnie VI. Old Business A. Gordon River Maintenance Project (Storm Water Dept. Project) VII. New Business VIII. Public Comments IX. Adjournment Next meeting is August 11, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 1 FOREST LAKES RECEIVED AUG 16 2010 isoard of County Commissioners ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE; ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 November 18, 2009 Minutes I. Call to order Meeting was called to order at 10:02 a.m. by Robert Jones. A quorum was established. 16 rf- v'' M.14M. I. j. Halas Henning Coyle Coletta II. Attendance Members: Harold Bergdoll, William Seabury, George Fogg, Robert Jones, Virginia Donovan (Excused) County: Tessie Sillery-Operations Coordinator, Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Caroline Soto - Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich- Manager Landscape Operations, CPL. David Krantz - Collier County Sheriff Department Other: Chris Tilman - Malcolm Pirnie, Darlene Lafferty- Mancan III. Approval of Agenda Add: IV. A. Officer David Krantz George Fogg moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes - October 14, 2009 George Fogg moved to approve the October 14, 2009 minutes as submitted. Second by William Seabury. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. A. Officer Krantz Pam Lulich introduced Officer Krantz. She questioned the possibility of additional policing and lowering the speed limit in the Forest Lakes Community due to peak season and increased pedestrian traffic. Robert Jones noted the outer boundary street speed limit is 25 mph per the Traffic Manual. Officer David Krantz stated he serves on the Community Oriented Policing Unit which specializes in: • HOA (Home Owners Associations) • Businesses • Foreclosed homes (currently 11,000 county wide) Mac. Correa: Dais: Item #: C :0'a 'a 1611 Bg � He requested Committee input on problem areas in Forest Lakes and gave potential solutions: • Speed trailers • Decoy Patrol cars (rotated weekly) • Send license plate number of repeat offenders via email to David. Kra ntz(aD-colIiersheriff.org Pam Lulich reported potential damage to irrigation heads due to Patrol cars parking in medians. Officer David Krantz requested an email from Pam Lulich on parking in the median. Officer David Krantz continued: o Collier County Observers (business retirees) conduct Parking enforcement and address Handicap violations Tessie Sillery suggested installing pedestrian signage. V. Transportation Services A. Budget Report — Caroline Soto reviewed the following: (See attachments) • Available Operating Expense $102,114.20 • Available Improvements General $2,686,080.00 B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard I Chris Tillman - Malcolm Pirnie — The Forest Lakes Master Project List was distributed. (See attached) Proiect (F -53) Quail Run Lake Shoreline Restoration and Stabilization Chris Tilman questioned the Committees preference (aesthetic) for the following: • Suggested the Bulkhead Cap elevation should be 6 inches higher than the grade behind it (Residential side) as a safety visual barrier • Install Rip Rap up to DHW line (Design High Water) • Slope 3:1 George Fogg expressed dissatisfaction with 3 ft. of Rip Rap that will be visible year round. Discussions ensued and it was noted the Maintenance Contract does not cover Lake Maintenance and additional cost will be incurred if sod and vegetation are installed in lieu of Rip Rap. After much discussion it was concluded the grass installation can be adjusted down to the normal water line to reduce the amount of Rip Rap installed. Chris Tillman noted the Rip Rap is a mix grade of smaller stones. Darryl Richard will provide Visuals and Cross Sectional Drawings to the Committee. 2 161 1 89 Harold Bergdoll questioned when the deteriorating cloth barricade will be removed as it was reported at the October meeting. Staff will follow up on removing the barricade. George Fogg suggested a 4 inch height for the Concrete Cap. It was concluded Chris Tilman will move forward on the Project based on the following Committee preferences: • Slope 4:1 • Adjust the Rip Rap level down for more sod coverage • Concrete Cap will appear 4 inches high (Residential side) and 12 inches wide Project (F -57) Drainage System Mapping and Adjustments • Final meeting is scheduled 11 -19 -09 with County GIS, RWA, and Malcolm Pimie • Location of Drainage features are mapped out • Close to completion Project (F -58) Sidewalks, Lighting Improvements, and Roadway Tree Plantings • Pending Design Prints from Windham Studios • Staff will request Windham Studios bring Lighting samples to the January meeting It was noted Forest Lakes Community has a variety of Lights privately installed (Condo Association) and is an eyesore. Project (F -62) Maintenance Dredging of Lake 8 Darryl Richard announced Wright Construction Group was the only vendor to submit a Bid ($110,239.03) for Project F-62- Maintenance Dredging of Lake No. 8. (See attached) It was noted Dredging is a specialty field. William Seabury moved to accept Wright Construction Group Bid in the amount of $110,239.03. Second by George Fogg. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Project (F -63) Property Line Wall along Woodshire Lane • Final Draft Scope (See attached) • Wall will be located on MSTU property Robert Jones reported areas along Woodshire and the front entrance have not been mowed. Darryl Richard will contact Southern Services. Project (F -63) report resumed. • Out to Bid in (1) week • Requires BCC approval • Anticipate starting Construction February 2010 3 . I . 1611 99 VI. Old Business A. Drainage Structure between MSTU and Downstream Golden Gate Structure — AMIL Gate — Chris Tilman foresees commencement of the Project in mid April 2010 by Storm Water. VII. New Business - None VIII. Public Comments — None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 11:44 A.M. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisory Committee These minutes appioved by the Committee on j- r - (C) as presented_or amended Next meeting is December 9, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 4 1611 Bg a 3 O cr ° cn o r -a o �* c Z 0 m 0 0 m m c CD H d _a �i m v m 0 c U) 1 0 nmn _q CD y 3 d m 0 O 3 0 O 7 9 m V1 Qt V H a) '4 'd �- U N in a m ^ N U Y F 0 a c z z u1 'i O i � O m � ~ u N tko 0 CL 1611 Bg r� n O O O 4 r4 4 l0 O 01 O M n 01 N Ln 01 te t/? a+ t/) � Ln Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y F- tr Z ar L {/} N n O y n O^1. O v_ .-� v m 14 am C � `n C m N a Ln ° °� °oa c n Ln M O O o O O t N O ci *3 C F LA N v} '- CO Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H 0 N U Ln en o � C7 c v' Ln °o o° °o, t.0 Ci 110 M � r-i Ln Ln O O It N N p R W � -4 rl Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 4/1. 41 c m H f0 0 CD 0 N Ln u u O O N O ci a` o o .N-� `�' •= J Ul � N J J Q) O O O O > cr N M n 0 O c v : -,: C O , � N 06 v O L > Ln 4 d u Q > N N QJ O N a u m a *4 m 7 W VI LA v > ` r co Q O b v Q ,,: Q ~ m o ,_r N 7 v O u N O O L, C N J w y., .> Q c N Q 1- Q1 O E a7. O .� ' - v a , o X .E ++ 06 ?) F- v m c LW Y v Q N ++ on = 2 pC C m V1 a+ .0 O W (A •� Q) m Y Gi O 4d C C U al = Q Ln ;amt �a E N M d Ln 1611 Bg u a {� = 0 a 11 SR a i T X a ll2 M L O c CD U c o cd to Ch c � � a CO o rs = a m�tL�> 0 zi 0 M a n~ N V L O N o 0 D w a 1` a C - 0 O ILL � L D O U O U 7 ` c L E y C T IJ . m q m w '- 1 • L= L A d W .- ....M C Q O da° _ E a W ri O cm C fa u c c N Q a m c w b _ 0 � = O CIO o a' E o m C =0 v 11 40 o•�oaci.°.Q c A C r w = N m 1 /{ D N S 10 m Y m A d OI O. D D E 0 DC L -10 m m r m C A m= a m w m c c o ~ D i D - O 3 0 Al CL u 1 w - m OI 7 K y i V n D c 3 `oE £La' m i c 3 t umi u o N E w m m Q m _arn_m Do m O C 7 0 D C N �c0 0 L, E �o° p a 0 m p O 1 ; V R O c m rs O o o m E T ` m ~ O� E w 0 Q m _ o ° o i 0 4 2cu Qp m ' n E a L C 1 �o i 6 1 .Q O N C Y o E O°>.cctuwa y q .! O O O m m j 81M N D m >o.. -c °�a0 o Qa+v' -"-, L 3 A C C V m Z n n a m m Nm , t ° N D D _ U '; O U L > O IT w 0 Dm 0m CDQ x E a 3 C m D C m T E = o `o w s R� E m E u- z n E D L N q j O _ C U ►. �s 1 6 O r- rs C 0 D L Q 0 2 c E D A 1 �{ IL E IA r= L o r£ 161169 a= D £ L m c 3 �'' .0 w C L 01- E ` w 3 c 0 w o O O O m 0 N Q - Ya:'°� ma m l r i C 7 v -- m" m m L A d O Q C Q r u i4 `o a ° Qm 16 -mr Y v R �- 1 m A 0£ m 0=40 N w p O va+u ^�� wcEoacNC mwm H is C u�: d b - !6106 4 Q ' O L a m~ O'sCQ o o t n '° E 3: w D 1 ° ,1 N � � NYJ c °„a E --' �y m 0 m m w V c on D m n U` -L. 7 m +O- C N -: D 1 w m .r C :- C L O H O or' .= O C a Q L O •°. m O. 'Em C 0 Y Y C o an o o £ im°T2O O w C D ° w v w I R A m O i0`m'2E_L� ocL 10 'a . r u o T E N m O c A .m+ rs U O Y at 's 0 o > c is 1 g a rs i p N o 1 D Q E m w C- o D O m O D w m E= O~ _C isN� wN 7D O V.O O` N C V -E L A OE :. U a A A L= y U U CL aocioQ n--w �s0 cc n r 0 w M C T+ oymis�c_a =vv to x C N v q£ L "00 m Y C 7 1 u w= LL L O ~> > K m D O O C M t C m r O i a c_ E n 3 c O O m 0- 7 R m 0 O ON 3 Q N Q a 3 n 1 so The Wagner Companies manufactures and stocks standard products for metal fabricators and also produces custom products — primarily for handrails Comprised of three product divisions — Architectural Catalog Architectural Custom and Wagner industrial — Wagner is the only source you will ever need fo and 5tccV railing. conVonerds ON "Pi 1! Click here to tiiew or download component image files and CAD files by entering the part numbar Glass Railing ;1 Featuring the new ParrelGnp and GlassWedge Dry Mount Systems Designed for use with 112" and 3/4" tempered glass panels as structural balusters i A.lore Spiral Stairways Custom spiral staircases built to your specifications and shipped knocked -down and ready for quick installation. ,Clore /% Cable Railing JO,.rby C redtl Card d,.er au ■■■.. � M2. The only cable railing system to feature Imnsiware''A hardware which provides a clean look unmatched by any other cable connector Alore f/f 1•: //Handrail.. Bar and Foot Railings Tube and railing components in brass and stainless - s steel for the assembly of handrail and bar and foot rails More 16 I i 89 Series 900 Heavy -Duty Aluminum Railing www.wagnercompanies.com The well- crafted dean lines of Series 900 Railing fits almost any commercial or residential building application. It's beauty, strength and durability will compliment your construction ideas. Finishes: ' Your choice of satin anodized or baked -on enamel. See color selections at right. Contact Wagner for actual color samples. is SA901 or SA905 Top Rail SA905 :i � fn c7 2 Z J Q Q � rri Z m SA902 Top Rail Rgitl Sk... _ Attsehments Bedmarde A jadn 'J W I I A901 RAILS Assembly ID Alwnin cr Top Rail 2F" W x 1 h" H, 18'& 24' Lengths 7 SA901 Top Rail 2" W x 4" H, 18'& 24' lengths 15 SA902 Bottom Rail, Sq. Hole, 11A" W x 3/." H, 16' & 18' a SA903 Bottom Rail, Red, Hole, 1W W x 3/." H, 16'& 18' 9 SA904 Top Rail 2" W x 11%."H, 18'& 24' Lengths 7A SA905 Bottom Rail, 1 /P W Hole, 16'& 18' Lengths SA94 SA909 FASTENERS SA95 ., All") on, Picket Screws 13 A"10 Rail Bracket Binder Bolt 12 SA912 Rail Bracket Binder Bolt %" SA98 (A) Post Bracket Rivet hi? 14 SA915 TUBING u: nini.ri Aluminwn 2'' /z" Square, 16' & 18' Lengths 1 SAM 2" Square, 16' Lengths SA906 SA377 4" Square, 16' Lengths 3A916 ONW POSTS & PICKETS Height., 32 ", 36 ", 42" or 48" Alumtnurn Picket %" Square, 4'/i" Centers 10 SAYS; - Picket 34" Square, 6" Centers SA920 SA9C POSTS & PICKETS (continued) Assembly to Aluminum Picket' /." x 1A" imam Wall Plate SA90 MITI End Post SA91 Finish Swivel Post SA92 Crossover Post 11 9A93 Bottom Step Post SA94 Section Post SA95 ., Top Step Straight Post SA96 Satin Intermediate Step Post SA97 .: Anodized Comer Post SA98 (A) Tap Step Comer Post SAN CAST FITTINGS u: nini.ri Base for 2.00" or 2.50" Post SAT22 17" Heart Scroll SA906 2i5" Wedge Base with Stud 3A916 Angle Base for 2.00" Post SA918 2" Slip Over Base SA919 2'f." Slip Over Base SA920 3/." Square Base 3A921 3/." x 11/F Base SA922 Adj. End Bracket for SA905 SA939T End Bracket for Top & Bottom Rail 6 SA940 End Bracket for SA903 Bottom Rail SA94013 17" Cast Fleur De -Lis Insert SA941 Cap for 2.00" Post SAR42 Adj. End Bracket Top for SA902 SA946 Adj. End Bracket Top for SA901 3A947T Adj. End Bracket for SA903 Bottom Rail SA948B End Bracket for SA902 SA949 Cap for 2.50" Post SA950 Post Ball Cap for 2%" Post SA951 Top Rail Hinge 2%" Width SA952 2 -Way Swivel Bracket Bottom SA953B 2 -Way Swivel Bracket Top SA953T Hord. Swivel Bracket Bottom SA954B Hord. Swivel Bracket Top, 2'/a" SA954T Almond Vertical Swivel Bracket for SA901 Top Rai 2'k" Width 5 SA95S (LI Vertical Swivel Bracket for SA904 Bottom Rail SA956 Base for 2.50" Post, Wedge Type 4 SA957 Angle Ramp Plate 2 SA958 Vertical Swivel Top for SA905 Top Ral 2" Width SA959 Crossover Cap for 2.00" Post SA960 Cap for 2.00" Post SA1961 Top Rail Hinge 2" Width for SA906 SA962 Top Rail Comer 2' Width for SA901 Top Rail SA963 Top Rail Comer 2'h' Width SA964 Crossover Cap for 2.50" Post SA965 Crossover Cap for 2.50" Post, Flat SA968 Crossover Cap for 1.50' Square Tube SA96? Base for 2" Post, Wedge Type SA968 Hodz. Swivel Bracket Top, 2" Width for SA905 Top Rail SA989T - Angle Crossover Cap for 2 /z" Step Post SA970 Cap for 2.50" Post, Heavy Wall SA871 Crossover Cap for 2.50' Post, Heavy Wag SA972 Heavy -Duty Base for 2.50' Post SA973 - 2h" Sq. 42 ", %e" with SA973 Welded On SA974 Side Mount Bracket for 2!4" Post SA975 Tan Comer Side Mount Bracket for 27:" Post SA976 (T) Wall Return, Left -Hand, for SA905 Top Rail SA978L Wall Return, Right -Hand, for SA905 Top Rag SA978R End Cap for SA905 Top Rail 3A972 End Cap for SA901 Top Rail SA980 End Cap for Bottom Rail for SA903 SA981 End Cap for SA902 Top Rail SA982 Lamb's Tongue for SA901 Top Rail SA983 Ehl1e Horizontal Swivel for SA902 SA984T Wall Bracket for Handrail 3" SA965 Lamb's Tongue for SA905 Top Rail SA986 Post Ball Cap for 2.00" Post SAT Post Finial for 2.50" Post SA992 Cast Rose, Snap -on Picket Insert SA993 ,. Cast Grape, Snap -on Picket Insert SA994 Cast Oak, Snap-on Picket Insert SAR95 90 Wagner i Braun • 888243.6914 • 414.214.0444 • FAX: 414.214 0450 • www wagnercompanies com www.wagnercomparties -com Series 900,950 and 990 Heavy- Duty Aluminum Railings offer the finest railing design features available on the market today. Highest quality aluminum alloy extrusions are used to provide maximum strength and support where it is needed most — in your installation. All Series 900 Railings utilize the advantages of aluminum — strength, durability and low maintenance. These character- istics make aluminum railings a practical, sound investment for the budget- minded builder. No complicated fittings. No costly custom -made fabrication. A minimum of fasteners make Series 900 Railings easy to install. Series 900 Railings are available in heights from 32" to 48 ". Optional pool railing is available in heights up to 72 ". Factory assembled railings are made to your exact specifica- tions resulting in further site fabrication savings. Series 900 Railings can be found wherever clean design and safety are a must. It is well- suited for condominiums, apartments, motels, churches, schools, commercial buildings and homes. To make Series 900 even more versatile, decorative flat columns, inserts and scrolls are available. 111 :,7 !I Ii �<<I ►I '� 11ill,�ll �jllii�i►i ti 1611 B9 Series 900 Heavy -Duty Aluminum Railing SERIES 900 SERIES 950 SERIES 990 Posts: 2%2" square Posts: 2" square Posts: 2%2" square Pickets: ''h" square Pickets: ' /:' square Pickets: 1112" x %" rect. Top Rail Options Top Rail Options Top Rail Options Width Height P.I'dn nnwn Width Height Al )'mm' Width Height Hluiiui uiui 2V is /e" SA901 2' /z" 1 %" SA901 2'/2" 15 /a" SA901 2" 4" SA902 2" 4" SA902 2" 1 W, SA905 Style A Style B Style C Standard Top Rail System Double Top Rail System 4" Square Post System Top Rail Options Top Rail Options Top Rail Options Width Height Width Height -Ui ii'um Width Height h..iinw, 2%2" M, SA901 2'/2" 15/e" SA901 2%" 1 %" SA901 2" 4" SA902 2" 4" SA902 2" 4" SA902 2" 15 /e" SA905 2" 1%11 SA905 .,..n,nfNnrr �� ,IIIIIIIII� �Inugilll IIIIIIIIIIIII 111111 Wagner / Braun - 888 243 6914 - 414 214 0444 - FAX: 414.214 0450 - www.shopwagrler corn 89 Av D r _c r 3 Z Z �c 3 FOREST LAKES RECEIVED AUG 16 2010 hoard of County Commissioners I. Call to order 1611 B9` Fiala Halas ROADWAY AND DRAINAGEe�i� . ADVISORY COMMITTEEI��a 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 January 13, 2010 Minutes Meeting was called to order at 10:06 a.m. by Robert Jones. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Harold Bergdoll, William Seabury (Absent), George Fogg, Robert Jones, Virginia Donovan County: Tessie Sillery — Operations Coordinator, Darryl Richard — Project Manager, Caroline Soto - Budget Analyst, Michelle Arnold - Director ATM Other: Chris Tilman — Malcolm Pirnie, Scott Windham — Windham Studios, Darlene Lafferty — Kelly Services III. Approval of Agenda Darryl Richard announced the Minutes will be taken by Kelly Services in place of Mancan. George Fogg moved to approve the agenda as presented. Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes — November 18, 2009 George Fogg moved to approve the November 18, 2009 minutes as submitted. Second by Virginia Donovan. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. Transportation Services A. Budget Report — Caroline Soto reviewed the following: (See attached) • Available Improvements General $2,559,377.39 • P.O.s paid to date $208,338.85 Darryl Richard noted a P.O. was issued to Kelly Services for Secretarial Services. Additionally the Mancan P.O. (Secretarial Services) will be closed when Mancan final payment procA ": complete. Jae: Item #: Copies to: V 16IiB9 B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard / Chris Tilman - Malcolm Pirnie - The Forest Lakes Master Project List was distributed. (See attached) Project (F -53) Quail Run Lake Shoreline Restoration and Stabilization • Draft Drawing and Specifications are complete • (3) Lakes are very close to Structures • Due to the close proximity of Lakes the proposed Bulkhead will be less than 6 feet away from structures • The Grading will slope down to the concrete Cap and pose a safety issue • Recommended installing a Cap Handrail • Handrail options were reviewed (See attached) After discussions it was agreed by the Committee to obtain Handrail Specifications from the Condo Association to match existing Handrails. George Fogg moved to approve the Railing on Bulkhead be chosen to match as closely as possible to the Railing on the adjacent buildings. Second by Virginia Donovan. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Projects (F -56) South Woodshire Ditch Improvements and (F -58) Sidewalks, Lighting Improvements, and Roadway Tree Plantings o Inlets and curbing will be designed around the proposed Sidewalk route Project (F -57) Drainage Svstem Mapaina and Adiustments • RWA is re- verifying inverts on 1 -13 -10 • Data is downloaded on a CAD file (by RWA) and will be available within a few days • CAD file with Aerial view overlay will be provided Discussions took place and it was concluded a Scope to Survey Cul- de -sacs and water exit points (to design public areas) was needed. Chris Tilman will request the Scope from RWA. Scott Windham reviewed Sidewalk Drawings: Woodshire Perimeter Wall • The Easement from Naples Bath and Tennis was not granted - The Perimeter Wall would have been placed on the property line and in some locations would touch the road • Proposed installing a Green Screen as an alternative - Is a mesh design - Vegetation can grow on the Green Screen - Creates an aesthetic buffer - Allows room for proposed Sidewalk installation Discussion ensued concerning options for the Shopping Center (unofficial) pathway created by the Public. 2 1611 69 It was noted the pathway leads to the back of the shopping center and a connecting sidewalk (provided by the Shopping Center) does not exist. The Committee agreed the pathway is a safety issue and liability to the MSTU and the Shopping Center. George Fogg moved to toss the issue back to County Legal Department. Without a second the motion will not be considered. Discussions continued on the pathway and the following suggestions were made: • Install a fence to discourage Public access • 'Request the Shopping Center provide connectivity to the existing sidewalk The Committee directed Scott Windham to proceed without providing a (sidewalk) connection to Pine Ridge. Scott Windham continued with the Sidewalk Design: Forest Lakes Blvd. • The sidewalk is a meandering Design • Suggested placing picnic tables in the deep area near the Gordon River access • The path was placed to the back of the ROW in Areas with extensive Drainage Structures • In areas with deeper Drainage (close to Homeowners yard) the path was moved toward the street • Street Trees will be installed 3 -5 ft. from the road Staff noted Kelp Lane is County property for Boat access. (Virginia Donovan left the meeting at 11:12 A.M.) Harold Bergdoll questioned if sufficient parking was taken into consideration on the Sidewalk Design. Darryl Richard questioned the Committees material preference (asphalt or concrete) for parking areas. The Committee chose concrete (fiber reinforced) for parking areas as it is the most economical and effective method. Staff will review Specifications and County Standards. Scott Windham reviewed Plant Material and Lighting Image Boards. (See attached) • Install a variety Flowering Trees • Recommended a Carriage style lamp (has a timeless appearance) y 16 11 gg It was noted the (existing) Lighting in the Community is a variety of styles. Michelle Arnold requested Staff provide pictures of Lighting installed by other MSTU Committees. Robert Jones questioned if lighting for the Directional Sign (Main Entrance -Pine Ridge Rd.) is part of Windham Studios Lighting Design. Discussions ensued and the following was concluded: o Sign Contractor will be consulted o Lighted Directional Signs will be installed at both entrances (Forest Lakes Blvd and Woodshire) o Add Signage to Windham Studios Scope of Services George Fogg moved that all vertical elements along the Road as part of Scott Windham (Windham Studios) Contract and that they all fit in the same design family. (The vertical elements include benches, lights, signs, mail boxes and trash receptacles.) Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. Michelle Arnold conveyed Virginia Donovan's discontent for sluggish progress on the Lake Restoration Project. She requested the Project move expeditiously. Darryl Richard reported the Bids should go for approval at the second BCC meeting in March. Darryl Richard reported bids were received for the Wall Project. He noted the original Bid Scope was based on installing a "Concrete" Wall. Windham Studios recommended installation of a 5 ft wide Vegetation Wall (metal screen) in lieu of a Concrete Wall. George Fogg moved that all Bids be rejected because the wall will encroach too close to the road. Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. VI. Old Business A. Drainage Structure between MSTU and Downstream Golden Gate Structure — AMIL Gate — Chris Tilman reported a Draft response is prepared. Submittal to Corp of Engineers is pending ABB Cross Sections and County (Storm Water) review. VII. New Business - None VIII. Public Comments — None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 12:00 P.M. s 1611 B9 ' Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisory Committee LI4 Robert Jones, Ch4,rpAan These minutes approved by the Committee on .r b - t 0 as presented or amended_. Next meeting is February 10, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 1611 89 DIVA INC. (-QNSL 1 -TI NC4 Pla nine • Visualization Civil Egineerint -Surveying & Mapping January 22, 2010 Darryl Richard Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Transportation Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 In care of.• Christopher C. Tilman, P.E. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Subject: Professional Service Proposal for Forest Lakes MSTU — Additional Services (RWA, Inc. File No. 070190.00.02) Dear Chris, RWA, Inc. is pleased to submit the following proposal for land surveying services associated with the development of the subject project. Outlined below is our understanding of the project profile and the assumptions we have used to develop our scope and associated fees in response to your request for proposal. PROJECT PROFILE • Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes (Client) intends to install sidewalks throughout the Forest Lakes MSTU. • The subject property is located within Section 14, Township 49 South, Range 26 East in Collier County, Florida. • The Client has issued a request for proposal including a preliminary scope of services, and has asked the consultant to provide a proposal. a The Client desires to retain the services of RWA, Inc. (Consultant) and proceed with the Project as described within this proposal. 0 The project is planned to be completed in one phase. PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS • The vertical datum will be collected in NGVD 1929. Existing easements of record within the property boundaries will not need to be vacated and/or modified. 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200, Naples FL 34109 - (239) 597 -0575, fax: (239) 597 -0578 www.consuit- rwa.com 7 161189 • The client will provide RWA, Inc. with a three business day notice of any required field surveying services. Such requests can be made via telephone, but must be followed up with a fax or email verification. • This proposal includes performing all services described within on a one -time basis. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.0 Design Survey, F -60 Cul -De -Sac Improvement Project 1.1. RWA, Inc. shall perform a design survey for the 22 cul -de -sacs, along Forest Lakes Boulevard. The Survey limits shall be up to 25 feet outside of the existing edge of pavement and shall be inclusive of visible evidence of existing utilities, drainage structure or features, trees, buildings, parking areas, drive aprons or any other possible obstruction to placing a sidewalk. 1.2. RWA, Inc. shall gather cross sections on 100 foot stations to determine the cross slope of the existing paved roadway. This shall also extend out up to 20' beyond the edge of pavement. 1.3. RWA, Inc. shall gather topographic data in the grassed area of the twin culverts (South Forest Lakes Blvd.) for use in design of a seating area, benches or other appropriate structures. The data gathered shall be consistent with 1.1 and 1.2. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FEES The professional service fee estimates for the associated scope of services are listed below. Scope of Services Fee Type 1.0 Sidewalk Design Survey $ 20,400.00 TIM /E Total $ $ 20,400.00 2.0 Reimbursable Expenses $ 300.00 T/M/E Note: T/M/E denotes Time, Material and Expense billing category. Stated Fee is an estimate only; client will only be billed for actual hourly costs related to individual surveying services. Excluded Services The professional services to be provided by the Consultant are limited to those described in the Scope of Services. All other services are specifically excluded. Listed below are excluded services that may be required or desired by the Client: • Construction Layout Services • Easement Vacations • Conservation Easement Descriptions and • FEMA Elevation Certificates Sketches • Special Purpose Surveys Page 2 of 3 SA20071070190.00TO Forest Lakes MS1'U \0212010- 01 -22-Forest Lakes additional - for merge.doc 'ONO, 16It1 B9 DAITA INC. C'C.11VSUI -TI NGr 1 t Y Y1 1 Planning -Visualization Civil En .aineerine • Surveying R Mapping ACCEPTANCE AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED Period for Acceptance This Proposal /Agreement is open for acceptance by Client through February 22, 2010. After the acceptance date, the proposal may be withdrawn or subject to modification by RWA, Inc. Acceptance If this Proposal /Agreement satisfactorily sets forth Client's entire understanding of the agreement, please sign one copy of this agreement in the space provided and return it to RWA, Inc. as authorization to proceed with the work. Owner /Client Authorization I hereby certify that the undersigned is the Agent to the Owner of the property that is the subject of this proposal. I hereby certify that the undersigned has the authorizing authority to execute this contract for professional services. I hereby authorize the performance of the services as described herein and agree to pay the charges resulting thereby as identified above in accordance with the attached Standard Business Terms and Conditions and Rate Code and Fee Schedule of RWA, Inc. Accepted this day of '12010. In Please Print Name For: Title Thank you for the opportunity to submit this professional service proposal. Please call if you have any questions. We will look forward to hearing back from you soon. Sincerely, Michael A. Ward, PSM Project Manager Encl.: Rate Code and Fee Schedule Standard Business Terins and Conditions Billing Address Information Page 3 of 3 SA2007\070190.00TO Forest Lakes MSTU1 02\2010- 01 -22- Forest Lakes additional - for merge.doc Wright Construction Group Inc. PROPOSED CHANGE ORDER 5811 Youngquist Road No. 00001 Fort Myers, FL Phone: 239 -481 -5000 Fax: 239 -481 -2448 TITLE: Transformers PROJECT: Forrest Lakes MSTU Project F62 TO: Attn: Darryl Richard Collier Co Dept of Alt Transp Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-5775 Fax: 239 -253 -9082 DATE: 1/14/2010 JOB: 0983 -00 CONTRACT NO: 098300 -SO02 RE: To: From: Number: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL PO NUMBER: 4500115161 Add to the Work Order scope 1EA. 5KVA and IEA. 7KVA Transformers to provide power to the two project locations. Pricing includes transformers, all piping and wiring, tea. 480v main disconnects, 2ea. 480 volt surge protectors, all other material required, labor, shipping, and tax. Price also includes engineering, signed and sealed drawings, and permits. To accommodate and extra fountain at Lake 14, included in this request is the required addition electrical, engineering, a permitting (revision). This includes an additional panel, GFI breakers, and a motor starter so two pumps can be controlled by 1 time clock. Price includes one addition fountain /aerator per the unit price in the base bid. A credit was included for the electrical in the base unit price. Contract Time Extension: YES. Wright Construction requests a Contract Time Extension of 60 days for this work. This extension is due to product lead times and the fact the project will now need to be re- permitted as a new service which would include signed and sealed revised documents. This time extension is based on a permitting review duration of 3 weeks. Item Description 00001 Materials - Transformer 5KVA 00002 Materials Transformer 7 KVA 00003 480 Volt Main Disconnect 00004 480 Volt - 25A/30A Main 0.00% Breakers 00005 New NEMA 4X Pnl, 2 GFI $383.00 Breakers, and Motor Starter 00006 480V Surge Protection 00007 Freight 00008 Misc. Materials and Wire 00009 Labor 00010 Engineering 00011 Permitting / Revisions / Prop 00012 Pond Airator with Fountain & 0.00% Lights 00013 Credit Electrical for Above APPROVAL: By: Darryl Richard Date: Expedition 0 Stock# Quantity Units Unit Price Tax Rate Tax Amount Net Amount 1.000 $549.00 0.000/0 $0.00 $549.00 1.000 $823.00 0.00% $0.00 $823.00 2.000 $383.00 0.00% $0.00 $766.00 2.000 $290.00 0.00% $0.00 $580.00 1.000 $1,150.00 0.00% $0.00 $1,150.00 2.000 $240.00 0.00% $0,00 $480.00 1.000 $125.00 0.00% $0.00 $125.00 1.000 $350.00 0.00% $0.00 $350.00 1.000 $2,800.00 0.00% $0.00 $2,800.00 1.000 $2,250.00 0.00% $0.00 $2,250.00 1.000 $1,200.00 0.00% $0.00 $1,200.00 1.000 $23,432.04 0.00% $0.00 $23,432.04 1.000 ($2,499.00) 0.00% $0.00 ($2,499.00) By: 4kL-- Mark Valin Date: 2&11 0 /0 1611 99 Wright Construction Group Inc. PROPOSED CHANGE ORDER 5811 Youngquist Road N0. 00001 Fort Myers, FL Phone: 239 -481 -5000 Fax: 239 -481 -2448 i TITLE: Transformers DATE: 1 /14/2010 PROJECT: Forrest Lakes MSTU Project F62 JOB: 0983 -00 TO: Attn: Darryl Richard CONTRACT NO: 098300 -SO02 Collier Co Dept of Alt Transp Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-5775 Fax: 239-253-9082 RE: To: From: Number: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Item Description Stock# Quantity ; Units Unit Price Tax Rate.Tax Amount Net Amount 00014 Overhead and Proffit on 1.000 $1,600.00 0.00% $0.00 $1,600.00 Electrical Unit Cost: $33,606.04 Unit Tax: $0.00 Lump Sum: $0.00 j Lump Tax: $0.00 Total: $33,606.04 APPROVAL: By: By: Darryl Richard rk Valin Date: Date: 1 Z(q D Expedition ID Page 2 of 1611 B9 Wright Construction Group Inc. PROPOSED CHANGE ORDER 5811 Youngquist Road No. O0001 Fort Myers, FL Phone: 239 -481 -5000 Fax: 239481 -2448 TITLE: Transformers PROJECT: Forrest Lakes MSTU Project F62 TO: Attn: Darryl Richard Collier Co Dept of Alt Transp Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-5775 Fax: 239-253-9082 DATE: 1/14/2010 JOB: 0983 -00 CONTRACT NO: 098300 -SO02 RE: To: From: Number: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL PO NUMBER: 4500115161 Add to the Work Order scope 1EA. 5KVA and IEA. 7KVA Transformers to provide power to the two project locations. Pricing includes transformers, all piping and wiring, tea. 480v main disconnects, 2ea. 480 volt surge protectors, all other material required, labor, shipping, and tax. Price also includes engineering, signed and sealed drawings, and permits. To accommodate and extra fountain at Lake 14, included in this request is the required addition electrical, engineering, a permitting (revision). This includes an additional panel, GF1 breakers, and a motor starter so two pumps can be controlled by 1 time clock. Price includes one addition fountaintaerator per the unit price in the base bid. A credit was included for the electrical in the base unit price. Contract Time Extension: YES. Wright Construction requests a Contract Time Extension of 60 days for this work. This extension is due to product lead times and the fact the project will now need to be re- permitted as a new service which would include signed and sealed revised documents. This time extension is based on a permitting review duration of 3 weeks. Item" Nscriptlon Stock# Quantlty.`; Unit's Unit Price; Tax Rate Tax Amount Net Amount 00001 Materials - Transformer 5KVA 1.000 $549.00 0.000/0 $0.00 $549.00 00002 Materials Transformer 7 KVA 1400 $823.00 0.00% $0.00 $823.00 00003 480 Volt Main Disconnect 2.000 $383.00 0.00% $0.00 $766.00 00004 480 Volt - 25A/30A Main 2.000 $290.00 0.00% $0.00 $580.00 Breakers 00005 Now NEMA 4X Pal, 2 GFI 1.000 $1,150.00 0.00% $0.00 $1,150.00 Breakers, and Motor Starter 00006 480V Surge Protection 2.000 $240.00 0.00% $0.00 $480.00 00007 Freight 1.000 $125.00 0100% $0.00 $ 125.00 00008 Misc. Materials and Wire t_000 $350.00 0.009/0 $0.00 $350.00 00009 Labor 1.000 $2,800.00 0.00% $0.00 $2,800.00 00010 Engineering 1.000 $2,250.00 0.00% $0.00 $2,250.00 00011 Permitting / Revisions / Prcp 1.000 $1,200.00 0.00% $0.00 $1,200.00 00012 Pond Airator with Fountain & 1.000 $23,432.04 0.00% $0.00 $23,432.04 Lights 00013 Credit Electrical for Above 1.000 ($2,499.00) 0.00% $0.00 ($2,499.00) APPROVAL: By: Darryl Richard Date: By: Mark Valin Date: 410 `6 1611 89 Wright Construction Group Inc. PROPOSED CHANGE ORDER 5811 Youngquist Road NO. 00001 Fort Myers, FL Phone: 239 -481 -5000 Fax: 239 - 481 -2448 TITLE: Transformers PROJECT: Forrest Lakes MSTU Project F62 TO: Attn: Darryl Richard t Collier Co Dept of Alt Transp Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South j Naples, FL 34104 f Phone: 239-252-5775 Fax: 239-253-9082 DATE: 1/14/2010 JOB: 0983 -00 CONTRACT NO: 098300 -SO02 RE: To: From: Number: DLSCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Item ` .. Description; Stock# Quanfityz Units Unit Price.. Tax Rate.Titx Amouat N6t Amount 00014 Overhead and Proifit on 1.000 51,600.00 0.00% 50.00 $1,600.00 Elecuical Unit Cost: $33,606.04 Unit Tax: $0.00 Lump Sum: $0.00 Lump Tax: $0.00 Total: $33,606.04 APPROVAL: By: Darryl Richard Date: • By: rk Valin Date: r.,.:.r: DIVA INC CONSULTING .i \ V VA. 1 Pi'umulg • Vitivalization Civil Faigineering Surveying &- Mapping January 22, 2010 Darryl Richard Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Transportation Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 In care of Christopher C. Tilman, P.E. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 1611 B9 Subject: Professional Service Proposal for Forest Lakes MSTU — Additional Services (RWA, Inc. File No. 070190.00.02) Dear Chris, RWA, Inc. is pleased to submit the following proposal for land surveying services associated with the development of the subject project. Outlined below is our understanding of the project profile and the assumptions we have used to develop our scope and associated fees in response to your request for proposal. PROJECT PROFILE • Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes (Client) intends to install sidewalks throughout the Forest Lakes MSTU. • The subject property is located within Section 14, Township 49 South, Range 26 East in Collier County, Florida. • The Client has issued a request for proposal including a preliminary scope of services, and has asked the consultant to provide a proposal. • The Client desires to retain the services of RWA, Inc. (Consultant) and proceed with the Project as described within this proposal. • The project is planned to be completed in one phase. PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS • The vertical datum will be collected in NGVD 1929. • Existing easements of record within the property boundaries will not need to be vacated and/or modified. 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200, Naples FL 34109 • (239) 597 -0575, fax: (239) 597 -0578 wwwxonsuft- rwa.com I �, W �(Il 0 MM 1 a The client will provide RWA, Inc. with a three business day notice of any required field surveying services. Such requests can be made via telephone, but must be followed up with a fax or email verification. • This proposal includes performing all services described within on a one -time basis. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.0 Design Survey, F -60 Cul -De -Sac Improvement Project 1.1. RWA, Inc. shall perform a design survey for the 22 cul -de -sacs, along Forest Lakes Boulevard. The Survey limits shall be up to 25 feet outside of the existing edge of pavement and shall be inclusive of visible evidence of existing utilities, drainage structure or features, trees, buildings, parking areas, drive aprons or any other possible obstruction to placing a sidewalk. 1.2. RWA, Inc. shall gather cross sections on 100 foot stations to determine the cross slope of the existing paved roadway. This shall also extend out up to 20' beyond the edge of pavement. 1.3. RWA, Inc. shall gather topographic data in the grassed area of the twin culverts (South Forest Lakes Blvd.) for use in design of a seating area, benches or other appropriate structures. The data gathered shall be consistent with 1.1 and 1.2. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FEES The professional service fee estimates for the associated scope of services are listed below. Scope of Services Fee Type 1.0 Sidewalk Design Survey 20,400.00 T/M/E Total $ $ 20,400.00 2.0 Reimbursable Expenses $ 300.00 TWE Note. T/M/E denotes Time, Material and Expense billing category. Stated Fee is an estimate only; client will only be billed for actual hourly costs related to individual surveying services. Excluded Services The professional services to be provided by the Consultant are limited to those described in the Scope of Services. All other services are specifically excluded. Listed below are excluded services that may be required or desired by the Client: • Construction Layout Services • Easement Vacations • Conservation Easement Descriptions and • FEMA Elevation Certificates Sketches • Special Purpose Surveys Page 2 of 3 SA20071070190.00TO Forest Lakes MSTU102\2010- 01 -22- Forest Lakes additional - for merge.doc 161169 IDA"XIA INC. (_'ONSULTING Z t V V1. Z Planning -Visualization Civil Engineering -Surveying & Mapping ACCEPTANCE AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED Period for Acceptance This Proposal /Agreement is open for acceptance by Client through February 22, 2010. After the acceptance date, the proposal may be withdrawn or subject to modification by RWA, Inc. Acceptance If this Proposal/Agreement satisfactorily sets forth Client's entire understanding of the agreement, please sign one copy of this agreement in the space provided and return it to RWA, Inc. as authorization to proceed with the work. Owner /Client Authorization I hereby certify that the undersigned is the Agent to the Owner of the property that is the subject of this proposal. I hereby certify that the undersigned has the authorizing authority to execute this contract for professional services. I hereby authorize the performance of the services as described herein and agree to pay the charges resulting thereby as identified above in accordance with the attached Standard Business Terms and Conditions and Rate Code and Fee Schedule of RWA, Inc. Accepted this day of , 2010. Please Print Name Title For: Thank you for the opportunity to submit this professional service proposal. Please call if you have any questions. We will look forward to hearing back from you soon. Sincerely, Michael A. Ward, PSM Project Manager Encl.: Rate Code and Fee Schedule Standard Business Terms and Conditions Billing Address Information Page 3 of 3 5:1200711170190.00.PO Forest Lakes MSTLM2\2010- 01 -22- Forest Lakes additional - for merge.doc 1611 B9 FOREST LAKES MSTU BOND PROJECT F -58, SIDEWALK SIDEWALK, LIGHTING AND STREET TREES DESIGN — CHANGE ORDER 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES Date: February 9, 2010 Prepared For: Collier County Alternate Transportation Modes Attention: Mr. Darryl Richard Prepared By: Windham Studio, Inc. Windham Studio, Inc. will complete the following scope of services and tasks as additional design services to the Forest Lakes MSTU Bond project F -58. Task 050 — Project Management (Add the following services) 050.2 Submit Irrigation and Sign Plans to CATM Project manager for review and comment. 050.3 Meet with CATM Project Manager to review irrigation and sign plans (Conceptual, 30 %, 60% and 100%) 050.4 Coordinate Irrigation Subconsultant (Plan review / coordination, status reports) 050.5 Prepare Irrigation Opinion of Probable Cost (60 %, 100 %) and Bid Tabular (100%) Task 200 — Lighting Design (Add the following services) 200.3 Design and specify lighting for the Monument Directional Sign at the clubhouse and proposed directional sign at the corner of Woodshire Lane and Forest Lakes Boulevard. Task 300 — Planting Design (Add the following services) 300.2 Complete Planting Plans and Specifications for the monument signs at the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Woodshire Lane, the directional monument signs at the clubhouse and proposed at the intersection of Woodshire Lane and Forest Lakes Boulevard and also the entry landscape medians at Pine Ridge Road and Forest Lakes Boulevard (30 %, 60% and 100 %) Task 500 — Irrigaiton Design (Add new task item) 500.1 Complete irrigation site investigation for the Woodshire Lane east ROW area, the Monument signs at Pine Ridge Road and Woodshire Lane, the directional monument sign at the clubhouse and the entry landscape medians at Pine Ridge Road and Forest Lakes Boulevard. Complete Irrigation Plans and Specifications to irrigate the areas (60 %, 100%) 6891 Brighton Lane #112, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -193' )✓mail: scott@-,t-indhamstudio.com 1611 99 Task 600 — Site Furnishings and Signage Design (Add new task item) 600.1 Research and compile site furnishings package and prepare location plans and typical details for furnishings installation (Bench, trash receptacle, picnic table, street sign, mailbox) 600.2 Coordinate with sign contractor to design a directional monument sign for the corner of Woodshire Lane and Forest Lakes Boulevard which matches the sign at the clubhouse. Task 700 — Services During Construction •(Add new task item) 700.1 Attend pre- construction meeting and construction related site meetings and site visits for sidewalk and plant material layout review. 700.2 James Abney and Associates will complete irrigation related construction assistance as follows - Attend pre- construction meeting and construction related site meetings and site visits for irrigation related issues. Fees: See attached Windham Studio Scope Breakdown and Fee Matrix Thank you for the opportunity to assist Collier County and the Radio Road MSTU Advisory Committee in improving the Radio Road medians. Sincerely, /I A 2/10/10 Scott D. Windham, ASLA Date: Landscape Architect, Owner, LA 000 -1516 Windham Studio, Inc. 8691 Brighton Lane #112, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Yhonc: (239) 390 -1936 Fay: ( 239) 391 -193' F ?mail: scotrnwin (ilia mstudio.corn 2 Q W 2 Qp 9 CC LL a� 0 K •` � 1p � W LL ~ C O F: r W 1611 ME, $ $8 8 88�a87 8588 X88�p8888 , �8 NNN N .1 1 1.1 ... N � N e3 N oa000 f V f N r 00 m 00 0 O 000 O v 000 O 0 8 c'Ci 25 E F N J ,271 N N (� J� N y J N J J y [N p J N J JJ 88881 pJ 00 p (�8pp • N el m NNYi Ny ww N NNN NN N 0 0 0 0 NdeNN 0 O Nei O 'cad O O od O O ovo O 0 0 Rod 0 O N N N" N wo w-. N N N N O O O O N Odd O N O O N 4 O O_ v O O 0 a 0 0 "ON 0 0 0 O G 0 G O O . 88 O O 8 N NN pYO q N N low N N N N N N N N y 0 0 0 0 GOOOC 0 O O N N i, O tC ad O O O0 O O v O O v 0 0 o oC 0 O dN CCC • � m 'WA I n � 8 g pj w t L s ; Ytyo?�fm c8? 814 8 88 N 8SN O�� Q N a7 QUi Q§ W �I�h 1611 ME, W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N N j N 4 8-- V Of N A �N -+ O V (A N A W N O t0 O V 01 N A W N O t0 OD J (1/ f7i A W N -+ O -� n-1— OOrmCmcnZmvOZmcnm - I - q zc�c� -1 q mm 2 O m m '0 c D v m O m r O p c z O m D D m< n c iU)cn p DD �D m =OZ2cn�cmcn =— m�G� -� DL��DD >mmzOOzz��c zm��=D r«� -mim1 fn D?t0 ��DZZ�ZT.D,Z�jTmnK�m r'�o < <�� p a mm m�� m� mnm k860z>mA5mn-1DZai m mm„„mm m�� =< p z— C� — —O 00 m- vIn �xx m� Smm 900imo;g2mm -IOZ0 0 mm�xm 'Im -q 0 6) O 0DD -4 <Z m. M — DzU) G=zO "n �� D _ m m 0 z Z �- z — G) -< 1X,cnD z 1 -� xD -00 0-q-1D z -DGm� m 2zm mm vC�x0cn cmn0 <mm�K 0OmZ� � n O mZrn G) G) > DKm �_ mmXmXm mD� Z O O O n D rC77 m z n� m n 1 G) m z m v 0 M� D O to W to 4A JA JA 40 to 4A 4o to 4A cn to 40 (A in 40 4A W 4A 469 W to tq 4o to EA (A fA 4A to to " 4W to to Co A A — W A 14 -4� V (n CT m -P. NN o 000 ) cT- 00 Q CT m,- m 3 O O -4 A- 0) OD O W W OC 0 CO O O 0 Cn W W W CO O CD O A —N -- -4 00 O N O N A O a 3 m m m m m m m m m m m ° 90 90 Cl N ODW O W— 00 W- PO V-4 O O O MCO C N Cp CONGO 'd 'O O000 0 O N No 00 O 0LTI0 to N O O O O O O O N O N O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N O N O O O O O m N 00 000 D D 00 NO N 0000 , , , 000000 , O N NO N O , O O O A. W -4 rnrn ADO COW O 00c) Of 00 00 .41 N COO �l A ? A W 00 CO CT CT C10 W 0000 000000 O W Cn000 O 000 • 00 to 6H Fo 4A fA to fA 000 00 �O -• �I 0000 CT 000000 O -+ -+O —O W -4 -N 0.01m mm o.Arn OOrn -� -> O 000 3 4A14AI4fA14A14A to14A1JA I6"M fA1W Q) to to (A H9 to vi to (A fo fo f° —, r 14^1441169 to to to to 4A fA to to (A 0 liill. n VA 4A VA iftI69 as W W -4 1�00 D CA -4 -4 O W W O 0 p W W O O (T N N O O -� N O O 4A N � pp W —N 00 Cp CA N W 0 tpm W O O ? O W C O Al V -4 00 W-+00 to 4A 4A 4A 4fl to to 4A 4H FA 4W 4A to W O Er m -P. r._ o Orn ) cT- CA P Q CT m,- m 3 00-4 y W 7. 3 in (n Cn W W O O C C C (D00NN ACA -� O A O O I I I CA O C (n 0 CWT N V W O O ? 0 0 to 4A 4A 4A 4fl to to 4A 4H FA 4W 4A to 4A EA EA N fo to Efl (A to to Efl Efl A O 0 O 0 0 V �N O 0 - XO 0 v O W 0 0 0 O V J 0 0 0 A 0 CN 0T UC0 T W W O O 8 Cn T W 0 0 0 D O O 0 0 NOOOObON000 1 to 4A to to to to to A _ -A 8 W CD cn CA O N O O N O O O O 0 3 _3 D 3 m 7 C. m (1 EA to to to m x V W D. � 0) Con W W -N 000 N EA fA fo fA A W O Er W co W ' CT 0) co W A O N W N t N O CA P Q CT m,- m 3 00-4 y W 7. 3 in (n Cn W W O O C C C (D00NN ACA -4 CF) (n 0 CWT m 00 m (Q (L� (o (D (a co' (a (a (a (a (0 (O (c -4 : I W O O (OT , a DD � �� --� 00 — 00 O — O OD 00 O Ut W -4 00 O N O N A O 4A EA EA N fo to Efl (A to to Efl Efl A O 0 O 0 0 V �N O 0 - XO 0 v O W 0 0 0 O V J 0 0 0 A 0 CN 0T UC0 T W W O O 8 Cn T W 0 0 0 D O O 0 0 NOOOObON000 1 to 4A to to to to to A _ -A 8 W CD cn CA O N O O N O O O O 0 3 _3 D 3 m 7 C. m (1 EA to to to m x V W D. � 0) Con W W -N 000 N EA fA fo fA A N O Er W co W ' CT 0) co W A O N W -• n n? C t (A N (T CO m o-o- � .m as ° o W W W W W W W W W v W W W W W W c? W W N a o W o m co o a D D D °-' v v 0 0 n n j a m not N< 3 ��_ — CD CD o8o000000�00 �CCW�W ,00W C7 W °' 3 3 >> �pp 33 3 3 3 3 3 3 33 333 m v m 0 - -V m D o CD CD a 0 3 cn cn 3 ::6 6 c) > n> W -V -v -0 =o -D rr- m m ° q(cn W W a 2 0 <. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.cn n n 3 m m v w p z 9-9- z z CD m m' CD m' m• m' m• m' m m m m m C C o CT a W o. o. v n m CD ?. v �i m in CD n 0 3 o Q° N C En En n� °—' m -° O m CD r tT m 3 3 3 N Co (n to o m CD i� A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A CT CT (T (T Cn Cn cn Zn CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CJl CT (n Cn tr cT CT CT Cn CT CT CT Cn CT (D CD 0000 - X00000000 O 00 O O W Ch CT N A W (A ? O_ 00 00 00 CA O W O co CT .A W m CD m 0) -� OD A �. -+ O Cn Cn OD N W D �I O CD W p�j W CD OW OW A A O CID N CNO C°D C0n C .n+ CCOT 000 COO W d> OO W .... ,p O 00 O O CT O (T W --` O .A, W -4 --` N v W co co W -4 O W -+ O A Orr r9r rr xDr WMTMMMM u-um-0 -ummW * *5 0MM> K00 CD 7� O O 7 7 7 -• n n? C O y- CD CD m o-o- � .m as < (Q 3 m w OOOOOOOOOOOOOm m (� Q CT m,- m 3 C y W 7. 3 in (n Cn W W O O C C C < < < < < < < < < < < < < W C y W m m m (� m m m m m m m m m TI TI n 0 W to (n cn C7 n. ,n„ Sic Zl ;0 (7 aD (n m < p�' m N in rn m in in in in y to In m m O `< T -n O CD (D O O O O W CD (D CD m 00 m (Q (L� (o (D (a co' (a (a (a (a (0 (O (c -4 : I C � m < 3 3 'C a DD � �� 3 as cn3.,3.3•�� : :r= m m QCD Cl) o o y m o: =' m' �s m cn m Cm o cncncncncncncncncncncncncnz W W < <� d W W m z oco T) (a 3 m 2 m m 3 cn <— 3 a 3 m m m m m m m m m m m ° 90 90 CT O O O OD OD o m m a) In o n m m 2 Z Z? � Z? z Z z? 2 2 m m m O W— 00 O �I O O O O O — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O N W O O O N C N Cp N In N T TI TI 'il -n 'd 'O CD N Cl) � NNW -4Ul W W 0 m o �`GK W e � F D �D °' m cn 0 o .. � 3 3 CD CD m �° 0) CD m(D ca o co' 2 2 o m D D � 0 0 0 �I 0) 00 co O O < n �- 10000o0 O O O.. Z rn -� -1 W W -10000 cn m (T cn cT cn (n (T cT (T Cn O Z Z Z W m W W W W W W W W Cn Z cD T co Z Z CT Z CT Z (.T lu C) O O O A. W -4 rnrn ADO COW W W W W DDD -4 (n C" M M M M M M Cn M M M W DDD D ODN O ° W .A A A 4 v v Cn CT CT CT 0 CT -4 CT U( CT CT 00 .41 N �l A ? A W °° OCn CO CT CT W W CD 0W OD O O O O N .p 4A to to to fo fA fA to fo vi Efl to to to fA 4A 69 fn fA to fA fA fA fo (A to to fA to to 6H Fo 4A fA to fA n -• �I N N A W N A CT m 3 N O CD O •P W •A W O W N A co A 00 Cn W O W Cn -440 ?A00 NCn Cn CT CT 0 rnO C), su 0 5, D W -4 -N 0.01m mm o.Arn OOrn -� -> o W 0 n o.A , , , oCnoO — ONooDo , , , , , 00 , , 03. 3 O O O O OCT - 6 , , , O W O.P.CDa600000 N O O (+ W 0 OOA -•N O W 0000000000 -40 O 4A 4A 4A 4A fA 4A 4A 4A ICA 4A 4A 4A 4A 4A to in fA fA 49 fA fA 4A 69 4.9 4A to 4A fA fA 4A to fA to 49 4A i !11001 O X Cr m c Z D �vx cn �cnm N coo Cl) O O N I C A A W O C A CD _ O _ -4 _ C n O_ O _ _ _ W O co N W A 0 CT O O -J O N OD A (D W O CT .01 N O N W CD CT W— OD W -4 N CT CA DD O O O O O D OD N n -4 T A W A T O O N CT CT O W M i-4 CT O O O O O W O O O O O O N v O O O CT CT O O O nl O A M W - 00 W O O O O O CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CT O O O OD OD O O O p, O W— 00 N OD �I O O O O O — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O N W O O O !11001 O X Cr m c Z D �vx cn �cnm N coo Cl) O O N I C P O O C0 J o N d Z G1 •� � i O L L M°-LL � L o U- C rf • O a) o O t7 00 *i 'O O j Qi d �"ca..amtn �: m q a O O O CL �. Z-0 m oaY N O t Lo N O V 0 to U tm 0 q (D C n -am O) N O a J O �� 't � Q Z co M. �a cm o'D m LL W c O O 'd N d c O 3 ar mac 0 mm °0 ° —'ai3 mad >� O r» �Om cn 'vim Q.T O a) 'M M y 'co 1� O o O ' eri U 0 to O d v CD 0 a m -m E �_ m J t W o r v _ ti 0 M Z N to O a N y J O � N 7 fl. 0 . m E d �, M U U Y O L L J a LL L Cn low � N r LL : cn a d co E N N W <C g O a) 'M M T 6K? 'co 1� O o M ' eri C 0 to O d CD 0 a -m �_ m J t o r v _ ti 0 6 Z N to O a O a) 'M M T 6K? 'co 1� O o M ' eri 161 O 'oO 0) N D U 3 Q y rn Q v m Ec�TE `° o�E O C N N C U U L P m O co p N ,O C `d V m C Cn N V$ C U U C y 0 0 m d m}j C O).. ZT .n U) C to t/� O CO .L.. > .a N LL N N C . m N U m U = f0 d O cm O-2 00co��oo va a� 3 of D 0) of rn r v (D a) � m of c cu c c rn y cn rn 3 O C _ �► '� a O— va�'Qda v o0 v 3 c v c N c> t7 m 't7 Y N a 'd M O m " O CO N m Y m ca a? 4? CO � c m e a U O m V ...' N d N U 0 C O N a m C N N O m (n 3 .O N N :. N O Co .. Y p y O o E m E 0 � O 2 C O O O 0 O O 0 Sri o � o N � CS! � T T E m m LL- m adi a � � � > m f°m2 = _ ass acDs N C U C C O C O_ N N N E y E c 0 c U ca COC m C N m N N O O o o N N 0 to O N CD �_ _ c 0 c U ca COC m C N N a c D rn C v m 0 0 N a to co O O N m R W CL W C CL c° O O o o N N 0 to O N CD �_ _ N a c D rn C v m 0 0 N a to co O O N m R W CL W C CL c° O O o o N N 0 to _o 0 o 0 T N O N N O m O LL ' N N rn >1 °'o °) Cl O N o C 7 as c C m a m as F= a 3 �o �3 0 m E c N m E � � m Q m O > CL CD 2 EL m E c m m c tU m S d LM > ° V O Q U) w 'a O y Y U N C �, C � y J U G1 co 1; co � o ec LL LL U. U. Li_ U. O O T N M tU IL c d > a E o m > d _o 0 o 0 T N O N N O m O LL ' N N rn >1 °'o °) Cl O N o C 7 as c C m a m as F= a 3 �o �3 0 m E c N m E � � m Q m O > CL CD 2 EL m E c m m c tU m S d LM > ° V O Q U) w 'a O y Y U N C �, C � y J U G1 co 1; co � o ec LL LL U. U. Li_ U. O O T N M co 2 y d m J L U- 0 y o J N 0 V � O � L L' L LL .a r••i ice.+ C� Q. C � N c 0 M E O L W E U N O Q N O N CL 0 m c� 'v c c .N N 7 io y O U ui 0 Z 1611 B9 O f 1" N W 1-� O H W H Q W r a cc U ao W N r a QQ ir Q N :) 69 y W CO Q a� r is LAJ Z `I- ¢a °QZ6 UV W F- W LL O SQ O S O O W � h O O SQQ Im Orrin Chc1i V � CA co a � rN a—) GO Oip V'LO 1nN r L LO W Ol NN v� 41 W N r r CL . a CV rc'i O r O O toH K m co c9) toH H totoH HtoH cc 0 H O O O O O m 0 O O w4) Y ; W O O O O ii C O O O O > Q wo cri Li NN = co c 0 N am CvIT i s J G CA V! C S W Z 0 S a v °�L ' _ I a C13 O 4) 3 ;C W U cr 0) w m r0 m N C Q 4 V p W H a U �N W 1 0 . O S S(� S O SQ as S O O O�yy O O SQQ S Orrin Chc1i p CA � rN a—) GO Oip V'LO 1nN r LO W Ol NN N r r CV rc'i O r 09,09,tot&N toH toH H totoH HtoH H O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O d'sfstNv wo NN G CvIT N O p N S qpp �S SpQ 1 1 1 1 q 8O N r r r r N N y H tf?H H u9y N fn to to w J J J J W J rA J co J cn J N J N J cn J N J N J 1 M 1 H 1 to 1 H 1 H 1 6! 1 H to U N to J J J J N J N J N J N J co J m J N J S O O O O S S O O�pp O O O 8 0Op S in I- CLn O cop p 10 1 r 1-- N c00 ' tD N LO LONin N��N O NN (�(, LO LO Cn 91 r r r N N tD d3 4o to d3 H to H 64 y bi H (o to H to 69 H H 000.00 0 0 co 00 0 0 0 coo 0 CV �'tf N� NN CC C9 CS c; '7Q0 NON O O SQ O S O 0 1 S ' i 1 pSQ o S 1 , ww 1 1 Iti IO b IOA IOA 09,619-40 to H H y 69 H 69 H 69 63, H 691 to H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N C O O N N N 'Q R 00 N O N 000 O r 0 p 0 O p p O o 1 S 1 1 1 i 1 IT Q N N cm 5001 N N !h r to to totoH tAH toH toH ytoy yy6► N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 coo O O O O COCCO NN tCW V. GO Cat CGO Cl CV O o \° p O S o rn .61 0 o H O o O •2 o M N N a1 N a'mw cn v o c (a (6 m U c a 2 E E •� a o 4 2 'a1 a = 41 O .> co W J c 'a ... m O N f0 G 0c cNU� 0 fib C c 0 C ,- Cp a C 3 0 3 O O C m 0 G 00 Ct '- 'p co W O C Q W g O U E� 2�S 12F cpi �� C* C� OTC C� N.2. C 2 O C� i�Q.G cC y.2) �O +, MoM.9 gam, wy� ? W a C 3 2 � �. > > 2 � CL cc _�E_ _�'E E `�� _ '�� L6 LE _�` W cc COM CL �0 a0 CMIcco a W C�JaQ NChvLO C? N r rN rN �j O Cl O 0 C O CA b In Cl 0000 ON Sco gin Q.0to Qn C^ r aim 161'1 B9 STATUS REPORT To: Forest Lakes MSTU Committee cc: Daryl Richard, Collier County ATM Jim Carr, ABB Chris Tilman, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. From: Scott Windham Date: February 10, 2010 RE: Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project F -58 Sidewalk Project Status Report 1 Committee and team: The following is a brief status report for the Forest Lakes Sidewalk, Lighting and Street Tree project: Conceptual Design (Windham Studio): • Complete: conceptual sidewalk alignment and modified it per staff and Chris Tilman review to its current layout. • Complete: Conceptual Planting design for the Woodshire Lane area and typical flowering street tree program. • Complete: Street light fixture recommendation. • Complete: Site furnishings recommendation. (bench, picnic table, trash receptacle, street signs, mailbox) 30% Sidewalk and Lighting Plans (Windham Studio): • Complete: 30% Sidewalk Plans which include preliminary street light locations • Next Step: • TR Transportation to begin electrical engineering design development of street lighting layout and specifications based on 30% preliminary locations by Windham Studio. • ABB to begin civil related services for sidewalk alignment including crosswalks, typical cross sections, etc. • Windham Studio to begin 30 and 60% Planting Plans Change Order 1 (Windham Studio): • Windham Studio has prepared the attached Change Order 1 for additional design services requested by the committee and county staff. Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000 -1516 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: ( 239) 390 -1937 Email: scott�awindhamstudio.com u-�v\v-.x-, indhamstudio.com FOREST LAKES AUG 16 2610 ,5odro of county Commissioners ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 February 10, 2010 Minutes 161 1 B9 M.S.T. Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta IX I. Call to order Meeting was called to order at 10:06 a.m. by Robert Jones. A quorum was established. IL Attendance Members: Harold Bergdoll, William Seabury, George Fogg, Robert Jones, Virginia Donovan (Absent) County: Tessie Sillery — Operations Coordinator, Darryl Richard — Project Manager, Caroline Soto — Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich — Manager Landscape Operations Other: Chris Tilman — Malcolm Pimie, Scott Windham — Windham Studio, Darlene Lafferty — Kelly Services III. Approval of Agenda Add. FY -2011 Budget Review George Fogg moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by William Seabury . Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes — January 13, 2010 Change: V. B., pg. 3, paragraph 3, should read. The Committee directed Scott Windham to proceed without providing a sidewalk connection to "the shopping center." Pg. 4, paragraph 1, second bullet, should read. A Lighted Directional "Sign" will be installed at "the comer of Forest Lakes Blvd, and Woodshire and both (entrance signs) will be lit. " Pg. 4, paragraph 4, should read. Windham Studios recommended installation "of a Vegetation Wall" George Fogg moved to approve the January 13, 2010 minutes as amended. Second by William Seabury. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. Transportation Services A. Budget Report — Caroline Soto reviewed the following: (See attached) Misc. Corres: o Available Operating Expense $2,559,377.39 Oiw: Item #: 1611199 B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard / Chris Tilman - Malcolm Pirnie - The Forest Lakes Master Project List was distributed. (See attached) Darryl Richard reviewed (2) Proposals: (See attached) o RWA - Additional Services $20,400.00 - Noted Cul de sac Surveys (22) were not included in the original Scope of Services - Surveys should be complete within 2 weeks George Fogg moved to secure the additional Survey work for Cu/ de sacs, not to exceed $25,000.00. Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. o Wright Construction Group Change Order No. 00001 - $33,606.04 for installation of the following - Additional Aerator Fountain to improve water quality - Step down Transformer(s) for conversion to single phase power (required for Aerator operation) - Engineering for Transformer(s) and Permitting costs are included in the Change Order Harold Bergdoll perceived single phase power is in place at Lake 13 Pump Station. Staff will verify the power phase mode at Lake 13 Pump Station. Harold Bergdoll moved to approve (Wright Construction Proposal in the amount ofl $33,606.04. Second by William Seabury. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. • Bids are due March 10`" • It was suggested to reschedule the next meeting (March 10th) to March 17th for Committee approval of the submitted Bids George Fogg perceived the possible need for two meetings in March due to the following: • A time issue with Windham Studio as they are 60 days into their 120 day Contract • Risk of delaying other Projects by rescheduling the March meeting After discussion it was concluded other Projects would not be affected by rescheduling the March meeting. Staff requested March 17, 2010 for the next meeting. George Fogg moved to postpone the March 1dh meeting to March 17"' at 10.00 am. Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. 2 1611 89 1 Proiects (F -56) South Woodshire Ditch Improvements and (F -58) Sidewalks, Lighting Improvements, and Roadway Tree Plantings • Minor adjustments to sidewalk routing • Final proposed sidewalk route will be incorporated as a line item into F -56 to proceed with Bid solicitation Discussion took place on Committee preference to minimize the amount of curbing in areas where it is not practical. It was noted the curbing design is not continuous. Staff declared curbing is needed for Pedestrian Safety. After much discussion the following was concluded on the curbing: • A Vertical Curb will be installed in close - fitting areas • A Valley Curb or Miami Curb will be installed in most areas • A Non - mountable Curb may be installed in a few locations Chris Tilman reported the discovery of a new fitting that will eliminate (19) Junction Boxes (at the upstream swale segment along Woodshire) for a cost savings of $60,000.00. Project (F -57) Drainage System Mapping and Adiustments • Initial mapping is complete • Consists of a Series of 14 Drawings • Available in GIS and CAD format The Committee requested a copy of the Map for each member. Project (F -62) Maintenance Dredging of Lake 8 • Contractor mobilized the site January 25tn • Encountered County Permitting issues • Shoaling is complete • Exotics were cleared C. Windham Studio Project Update -Scott Windham reviewed the Status Report: (See attached) • Conceptual Planting for Woodshire area • Recommendation package on Site Furnishings • Street Light Fixture recommendation • 30% Construction Plans were given to Staff • Tree concept ideas were incorporated to work with Lighting Woodshire Conceptual Sidewalk and Planting Design o Green Screen (Perimeter Wall) - Is a Metal framework box - Install alternating Vines of Lavender and Jasmine - Planting pockets are at the fence ends Forest Lakes Blvd. Sidewalk and Street Tree Plan o Plan is designed around Seasons of the year for optimum flowering ki 1611 99 A • Large and small scale Tree groups will flower in opposite Seasons for color year round • Street Lighting will be installed in the center of Large scale Trees (75 feet apart - 3 fixtures per block) Site Fumishings Package • Bench and Picnic table will be made of composite material (recycled plastic) • Street Light - Downward Bell shape light - 10 tol2 foot post - Mounted on side pole - Simple design for the pole • Street Signs will be installed on the same design as the Light pole for consistency George Fogg moved to accept this presentation as shown by Scott Windham and move forward. Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Windham Studio Change Order No. 1 ($10,458.00) for additional Services was reviewed. (See attached) George Fogg moved to approve the additional Design Services as outlined by Scott Windham (Windham Studio) in his proposal, not to exceed $11,000.00. Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Harold Bergdoll left 12.02 pm VI. Old Business A. Gordon River Maintenance Project (Stormwater Dept. Project) Chris Tilman reported: • Response was resubmitted to Corp of Engineers • Royal Poinciana donated the services of ABB for production of Survey and Cross Sections VII. New Business A. FY -2011 Budget Review Staff announced Mark Isakson is attending the March 17th meeting for FY -2011 Budget review. Darryl Richard requested Committee approval for Staff to plan a Public Meeting in March to present Project Concepts to the Forest Lakes Community. William Seabury moved to plan for a Public meeting in March. Second by George Fogg. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. al 1611 gg VIII, Public Comments — None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 12:08 P.M. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisory Committee 1 Robert Jones, Chai n These minutes approved by the Committee on - ). g " a as presented_e!:�_or amended Next meeting is April 14, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 . 16 11, _B9 Fiala Halas FOREST ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE Vl.�1��9 LAKES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Coletta 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 RECEIVED March 17, 2010 AUG 16 2010 f,oard of County Commissioners Minutes I. Call to order Meeting was called to order at 10:04 a.m. by Robert Jones. A quorum was established. 11. Attendance Members: Harold Bergdoll, William Seabury, George Fogg, Robert Jones County: Tessie Sillery—Operations Coordinator, Darryl Richard — Project Manager, Caroline Soto — Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich— Manager Landscape Operations, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM, Rhonda Cummings- Purchasing Other: Chris Tilman — Malcolm Pirnie, Richard Barry- Public, Darlene Lafferty — Kelly Services Robert Jones suggested presenting a letter of appreciation to Virginia Donovan for time served on the MSTU Board. Ill. Approval of Agenda Add. Vll. B. Trimming Australian Pines VII. C. Eliminating Pepper Hedge- Woodshire and Forest Lakes Blvd. George Fogg moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes — February 10, 2010 The Committee requested to postpone approval of the minutes until the April 14, 2010 meeting. George Fogg moved to hold the approval of the minutes until the next board meeting to allow time to review. Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. George Fogg requested to postpone the May 12, 2010 meeting until May 19th. George Fogg moved to postpone the May (12"') meeting until May 19th. Second by William Seabury. Motion carried unanim l ,v*g, Dab: Nw k Copies to: 1611 69 V. Transportation Services A. Budget Report — Caroline Soto reviewed the following: (See attached) • Collected Ad Valorem Tax $168,506.56 • Closed P.O.s will be removed from page one Budget Report as requested by the Committee B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard I Chris Tilman - Malcolm Pirnie — The Forest Lakes Master Project List was distributed. (See attached) Darryl Richard reviewed the Bid Tabulation for F -53 Project: (See attached) o Quality Enterprises was low bidder $1,153,254.75 George Fogg moved to approve Quality Enterprises for MSTU F -53 Lake Shoreline Restoration and Stabilization Project at $1,153,254.75 base bid plus 10% contingency if needed. Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Darryl Richard stated BCC approval is required. The projected completion date for the Project is October 2010. Discussion ensued concerning the rocks around the lakes Chris Tilman stated the rocks will be used for bulkhead stabilization and in the event the Lake is too shallow the rocks will be removed. George Fogg expressed a need to preserve stones to place around the lake perimeters for aesthetics. It was concluded coordination with the Golf Course is needed for utilizing stones along the Lakes. Proiect (F -52) Maintenance Dredging of Lake 8 Harold Bergdoll confirmed the FPL Power connection is complete. Chris Tilman reported: • Final inspection will be scheduled with FPL • Edge of Lake 9 re -sod is complete Discussion ensued concerning removal of the Pepper Hedge along Lake 9. Chris Tilman will request removal of the Pepper Hedge during final walk through inspection. Project (F -56) South Woodshire Ditch Improvements o Ready for Solicitation with Annual Contractors o Malcolm Pirnie Change Order $17,500.00 for additional field time (Curbing installation) was reviewed (See attached) 1611 gq George Fogg moved to approve additional (funds) up to $18,000.00 to Malcolm Pimie Contract for handling additional time on installation of curbing. Second by William Seabury. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Darryl Richard reviewed renewal of CMA (Contract Management Assistance) $40,000.00 for Malcolm Pimie. William Seabury moved to approve $40,000.00 for CMA Contract (Contract Management Assistance) for Malcolm Pimie. Second by George Fogg. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Darryl Richard announced a Stop Work Order was issued to Scott Windham for Sidewalks and Lighting Design Project based on review of the BVO process by Purchasing, County Attorney, and the Clerk of Courts. Michelle Arnold relayed the following information provided by Steve Carvell: • Payment processing was stopped for all Contractors approved under the BVO process due to concern by the Clerks office • The BVO process may be in violation of the CCNA (Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act) process as it solicits a price • Purchasing submitted a recommendation to the Clerks Office to issue payment to Consultants who have already provided services - The proposed solution is to cancel BVO Contracts and re- issue Contracts under the CCNA process • Noted Consultants were awarded contracts based on several criteria and not solely on bid price Rhonda Cummings clarified the (Purchasing) recommendation is re- issue Work Orders to Contractors currently providing Services to maintain continuity. The Committee expressed concern Project activity delays due to the Stop Work Order. George Fogg moved for the (MSTU) Committee to express their extreme concern to the BCC on the delay of the Project and be ready to go before the BCC if the (BVO) problem is not resolved within the next couple of weeks. Second by William Seabury. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. C. Windham Studio Project Update -Scott Windham -None Chris Tilman reviewed the Survey Map which combines all Surveyed information by RWA (Forest Lakes Community.) George Fogg noted areas on the map that are not clearly defined. Chris Tilman requested comments from the Committee on the Survey Map. BMWs) Harold Bergdoll questioned when the Maintenance Contract will go out for bid. Darryl Richard replied the base information for the Contract was received and Bid Specifications will be ready in 20 days. Discussions ensued on the Maintenance Contract and Swale maintenance. Harold Bergdoll noted the closed Culvert (area 14) was due to reopen under the Maintenance Contract and is creating flooding issue. After much discussion it was concluded installation of a yard drain will fix the problem and may be rolled into another project to expedite the repair. Pam Lulich suggested obtaining price quotes for interim Mowing from existing RFP Contractors until the Maintenance Contract is awarded. George Fogg moved to set aside $40,000.00 for interim Landscape Maintenance until such time a long term Contract is active. Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Darryl Richard will notify the Committee of the approved Contractor for interim Landscape Maintenance. D. Fy -2011 Budget Review /Approval Darryl Richard reviewed the proposed Budget and the following changes were made: (See attached) Harold Bergdoll left 11:35 a.m. Engineering Fees o Update to $28, 000.00 Surveying Fees o Current 11 - $20,000.00 Harold Bergdoll returned 11:40 a.m. Abstract Fees • Forecast 10 - $5,500.00 • Current 11 - $0 Other Contractual Services o Current 11 - $200,000.00 Electrici • Forecast 10—$1,000.00 • Current 11 - $3,500.00 4 1611 gg License and Permits • Forecast 10 - $0 • Current 11 - $0 Resurfacing o Current 11 — $5,000.00 Lighting o Current 11 - $2,500.00 Other Miscellaneous o Current 11 - $10,000.00 Other Operating • Forecast 10 - $150.00 • Current 11 - $300.00 Improvements General o Forecast 10 - $2,000,000.00 George Fogg moved to approve the (FY -2011) Budget as amended today including 10% contingency in Capital Reserves. Second by William Seabury. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. VI. Old Business A. Gordon River Maintenance Project (Stormwater Dept. Project) Chris Tilman reported: • Corp of Engineers requested additional information • Easement agreement(s) with Royal Poinciana and Country Club of Naples are in progress VII. New Business A. Advisory Committee Applications Dick Berry gave a brief introduction stating he is a full time resident in Naples. George Fogg moved to recommend to the BCC the approval of the 2 applicants (Robert Jones and Richard Berry) to fill the vacancies. Second by William Seabury. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. B. Trimming Australian Pines Darryl Richard reported trimming is scheduled Spring 2010 (by Golf Course.) C. Eliminating Pepper Hedge - Woodshire and Forest Lakes Blvd. William Seabury reported the Pepper Hedge was trimmed (by Condo Association) and perceived it as a band -aid fix. He inquired if the MSTU can assist in removal of the Pepper Hedge. 5 1611 B9 Harold Bergdoll reported homeless individuals are living in the Pepper Hedge. Chris Tilman will access the Pepper Hedge for possible removal. VIII. Public Comments - None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 12:30 P.M. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisory Committee ob� Robert Jones, 1C airman These minutes annroved by the Committee on - I LI' as presented or amended Next meeting is May 19, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 on O D r m N V _ 161, OD J 01 (T A W N O t0 OD J w (ll A W N O �� Doo DD �D� M=02 wxwmO� -Kcz OMfZTIDDxx m�<-nc >mm z Z= c w = -m�o0 DG��)DD <mm IM c' mm omm cznw DSO D�D�_I�zM --'mx <-n �z o�7�7zz m > M << T-I rC)< -I DzZm�Dx� m To G� -n� ��-i�o �mm m--I -I m0 m- �o00Dmzc�mn -ID -m �mmTmmm m k_< p��t ;0;0 ;u W- cmm ow<-KCoxm- �)ZOzow <MWMM fn�Zc)D Q O 0>> � <z C)ma) � �p-I mcn� mm �D�pr rn XOZZ C»X �zzO -< m ��wDm zoo u * *Xxw'X _OO p D z m p cn m w Z m I j m n O w m 0< D o � o --A Z -Z-1 Cox o vZ m Opz �D w >KM mmmDM MmmmD z O O O0 m n > r m Z XX roe mnw X cn Z D m m Z m C�MO O�cmJn EA fA fn fA fn to to (fl fA fn to 40 fn to to to to to fn to to t9 (0) kA c fA 40 <A rn JA (A fn fn w►f» cq <n tq CT A �I (T O N O Co N O (O A O DDD �(0 CT(IT(A()0)OO)0)CnC)(A(Aw (, V =r V V CT (T 0 CT (T (T -lJ CT C1 (T (T v A -• W N in P 6 A A A A OOD CD O O0 D O (WO A O O O 0c0 ro (D O CD -� W O CT -+ 00 (T N CD O O 0 O D O I I I r O fT O co O 0o co m 0'7 O I O N O I I O �' V O O A 0 0 (T (O O V W CT 0 0 0 O N N O O 00 O 0) V A (T OD W 0 W p (D pp CD (T W W W CD O CO O A N - - - O O N CT (D N O A V O 0. m N CO w W 8 N V V CT O (n W N 00 O O O O N CT C N N (O (T O O O (T (T CL N O O O O O O O N O N O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N O N O O O O O m N O O O o 0 0 0 N O N O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O I I I I N N O N O I I O I O O O Q 01 O O O O O O O 0) 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0) M o G) O O O O O 0 0 0 0 CD O O -10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O - O - O O l O O O d9�v►�tn�v>�tn tn�fA�tn� stn •_,,�;,�..., .,, c,:• <fl fn to to fn fn fn v: U� v �v►�tn�tn to fn fn tnitAltn to to fn n w 01 O CD i I V CD WA to fn fA fo to co W O N (p p 9) COO CT w (A W 'too, I A - W w CA (P V O O V_ CO (b N O O N O O m O O w w N W W O W (D O Co V N C7( N O CO co W O .1 N O Cr I (T O O O 00 V tAltn foIfA1691iA169 to I 11�1��1 • • �ER M I O (T �A Cl O I O o c � c fo fo W 69,69 fo to to to L9109 to 69 fo IW ffl to to fo 69 to fn fo 69 4W to f» :: =. fil W CA O 00 (o CO CT W O_ N 0 0 rn wa°o 1 rnrn -1 -1 - I�Oo0o0o U°,m - , C71 n0cncncnw °c°c°T(°o O A I O v 0 p CT CT O �I (T O N O Co N O (O A O DDD �(0 CT(IT(A()0)OO)0)CnC)(A(Aw (, V =r V V CT (T 0 CT (T (T -lJ CT C1 (T (T v DDD� 00 DoDN° A N in P 6 A A A M OOD CD O O0 CD 00 W N O (WO A O O O 0c0 ro (D O CD -� W O CT -+ 00 (T N CD O O 0 O D V O O O (O O I I I w w N W W O W (D O Co V N C7( N O CO co W O .1 N O Cr I (T O O O 00 V tAltn foIfA1691iA169 to I 11�1��1 • • �ER M I O (T �A Cl O I O o c � c fo fo W 69,69 fo to to to L9109 to 69 A O I O O O 69 fo fn fo 69 to (9 69 to to fn fA 69 0) A W O O CD O cn O O W CT CT O O0) W OO -(1 OOOO OOO -+W N000 V OOOO I OOO O -• -- 0 0 0 -• O? O (1 O O O 01 �J N 0 0 0 O O N O Cl O Ffl tfi fn ti fn to to to fn _ A -• CO A O N O O N O iD O � O 0 3 3 M N tofWtofnm x N j m D (T A Q - fD O (b (b V y O co v N to to to to C W 0 C71 A ,r• W A A A ZT (D OD OD N W O N -I 00 **�00 * * * *gmmw mvvwm wm mwma mwasMo0W -0-0 s =r DD DD -� N o o_o_o_o_o_o_o_o_o_o_o_o v 2-c v �cflco Doi 33 3n� �� 0003333333333333m mv0 �(D mDX�_�a y (n cn �m m E TTTTTTTTm��_o-o- v m m m� -T &N M X X c c(° o 3 033333 333 3Z) cD3mm m c n n 3 ? 0 z z CD (D CD m" m' 3" FD' 3' m �D m m m cn a n y U � � r �- O z o' o' °-' 0 n m (D z n n (D m 3 ° 3 CD cn 5 3 m m A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A CT T (T CT (T CT CT C1 CT (T T CT CT CT T CT (T CT (T CT (T T (T (T CT (T cT CT CT C1 < ' CO CO _. - - - - _. - - O -. - - - - - - CD �.. O O� w O O O O O O O O co O O O O: 0 0 W W W W CT W (T N A A m O 0D O (b OD OD (A (1 V A W CD CD CD (A CL 00 �I A O (T CT O (D N -4� W D V (A O 0) (O (O O O w N N N O O O OD ,nom, 0 CO 7 (D O (.71 � (A N W N A O O W (A C1 O CT W A A O A W v N O 000 OW O W �I O CA O (A A pv m raw m ariw �Dr- wv�� c�m��D�pp CD ° �(° ° 0 ° 0 � - -<<(a m �s(n o �D o m Cr (D CD 0 C) m ?.na nn 3 m m 0000000000000@ (p m (p rn Z3 �' v N (° 0 c c c c (P D v m m m (CDD m m m m m m m m CD m v -n m - 0 0 (° v, u, oa 'a o y m O' �• in in N in (n (n N (n y in m in (n o� v `Z z N O0 z � N (�D ° ° v m m m m (D W (D °-' (fl (o m' (o' cfl' (fl' (o (o' (D (o' (n' (n (D - - -I � C_ m p O D Dom' 0 m= 0= (D°� m-------- -3 - - -w wm m ° (\ 0 m m o o m 0 000(0 (DEC „�, CD Cn w w Cn w w w(n w(n w w in � Z -I m Cv N v _ 0 3 m m m m m m m m m m m m m 3 o <- -0 o m CD :3 s o Ci CD CD Z 2 z? 2 2 Z z 2? Z3 2 0 N CD CD ° 90 90 3 U) 0 0 ° - o � (n . . (n (n 0• m O CD C CD m �. (7i> y N TI 1'I m TI TI 7 m f Y (N c W CT CJf u O co) CT Q1 tU w O o °� � o D r OD m CD = O (A c -a .. (Q (0 co = = 2 CD 0 m fo IW ffl to to fo 69 to fn fo 69 4W to f» :: =. fil W CA O 00 (o CO CT W O_ N 0 0 rn wa°o 1 rnrn -1 -1 - I�Oo0o0o U°,m - , C71 n0cncncnw °c°c°T(°o O A I O v 0 p O O A CT I CD -+ O C1 A O N O Co N O (O A O A O I O O O 69 fo fn fo 69 to (9 69 to to fn fA 69 0) A W O O CD O cn O O W CT CT O O0) W OO -(1 OOOO OOO -+W N000 V OOOO I OOO O -• -- 0 0 0 -• O? O (1 O O O 01 �J N 0 0 0 O O N O Cl O Ffl tfi fn ti fn to to to fn _ A -• CO A O N O O N O iD O � O 0 3 3 M N tofWtofnm x N j m D (T A Q - fD O (b (b V y O co v N to to to to C W 0 C71 A ,r• W A A A ZT (D OD OD N W O N -I 00 **�00 * * * *gmmw mvvwm wm mwma mwasMo0W -0-0 s =r DD DD -� N o o_o_o_o_o_o_o_o_o_o_o_o v 2-c v �cflco Doi 33 3n� �� 0003333333333333m mv0 �(D mDX�_�a y (n cn �m m E TTTTTTTTm��_o-o- v m m m� -T &N M X X c c(° o 3 033333 333 3Z) cD3mm m c n n 3 ? 0 z z CD (D CD m" m' 3" FD' 3' m �D m m m cn a n y U � � r �- O z o' o' °-' 0 n m (D z n n (D m 3 ° 3 CD cn 5 3 m m A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A CT T (T CT (T CT CT C1 CT (T T CT CT CT T CT (T CT (T CT (T T (T (T CT (T cT CT CT C1 < ' CO CO _. - - - - _. - - O -. - - - - - - CD �.. O O� w O O O O O O O O co O O O O: 0 0 W W W W CT W (T N A A m O 0D O (b OD OD (A (1 V A W CD CD CD (A CL 00 �I A O (T CT O (D N -4� W D V (A O 0) (O (O O O w N N N O O O OD ,nom, 0 CO 7 (D O (.71 � (A N W N A O O W (A C1 O CT W A A O A W v N O 000 OW O W �I O CA O (A A pv m raw m ariw �Dr- wv�� c�m��D�pp CD ° �(° ° 0 ° 0 � - -<<(a m �s(n o �D o m Cr (D CD 0 C) m ?.na nn 3 m m 0000000000000@ (p m (p rn Z3 �' v N (° 0 c c c c (P D v m m m (CDD m m m m m m m m CD m v -n m - 0 0 (° v, u, oa 'a o y m O' �• in in N in (n (n N (n y in m in (n o� v `Z z N O0 z � N (�D ° ° v m m m m (D W (D °-' (fl (o m' (o' cfl' (fl' (o (o' (D (o' (n' (n (D - - -I � C_ m p O D Dom' 0 m= 0= (D°� m-------- -3 - - -w wm m ° (\ 0 m m o o m 0 000(0 (DEC „�, CD Cn w w Cn w w w(n w(n w w in � Z -I m Cv N v _ 0 3 m m m m m m m m m m m m m 3 o <- -0 o m CD :3 s o Ci CD CD Z 2 z? 2 2 Z z 2? Z3 2 0 N CD CD ° 90 90 3 U) 0 0 ° - o � (n . . (n (n 0• m O CD C CD m �. (7i> y N TI 1'I m TI TI 7 m f Y (N c W CT CJf u O co) CT Q1 tU w O o °� � o D r OD m CD = O (A c -a .. (Q (0 co = = 2 CD 0 m £o fo IW ffl to to fo 69 to fn fo 69 4W to f» :: =. _, A t9 69 fo f0 U:- !Fi E9 to to fA fA to to to fo fA 69 Ew to .p, T O p 0 0 rn wa°o 1 rnrn -1 -1 - I�Oo0o0o U°,m - , C71 n0cncncnw °c°c°T(°o O (°D ODD 0 (°O� CO o o? Zww ww ZZZ (,v, ��www(�wC;.>()w(1)wil .°» ZzZ Z z 0 4 0 m D(DCD CO CD O O W A A A A DDD �(0 CT(IT(A()0)OO)0)CnC)(A(Aw (, V =r V V CT (T 0 CT (T (T -lJ CT C1 (T (T v DDD� 00 DoDN° A N in P 6 A V v V V -! - v V --j O CO cn CT C O0 CD 00 W N O (WO A O O O 0c0 ro (D O CD -� W O CT -+ 00 (T N CD O O 0 O D V O O O (O O I I I r O fT O co O 0o co m 0'7 O I O N O I I O £o fo IW ffl to to fo 69 to fn fo 69 4W to f» :: =. _, A t9 69 fo f0 U:- !Fi E9 to to fA fA to to to fo fA 69 Ew to .p, p O A A 00 N N N O CT A -� O 00 V O O OD CD (b N O O O w O W N C m CO -� O W W N W O O (T O O O) A A M A w 00 0D -� iT N O m O A W W A m CT (A m CT (T CT A (1 cT W O (b (T O �. O (WO A O O O 0c0 ro (D NNj CD -� W O CT -+ 00 (T N CD O O D V O O O (O O I I I r O fT O co O 0o co m 0'7 O I O N O I I O �' V O O A 0 0 (T (O O W O CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 �I O 0 0 0 O N OD N V 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1 rn W O N O O O A - N OJ O CO O O O O O O O o N O O O 40'69 6A to fA fn to to to 69 to fo to fn to to fn to to fA 69 fA fn to fn 69 to to to to fo to fo to to to fn to 69 to NB D m a C cn zr D N�m O to (n 0 3 C p A A 00 N N N O CT A -� O 00 V O O OD CD (b N O O O co N W C m CO -� O W W N W O O (T O O O) A A M A w 00 0D -� (1 A CT N W (D (O CT A W OD O A V N CT O v 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 V A V OD A -I (A 0 0 0 00 (T O-0 I I O I O O W CD -1 -I W CT 0 0 0 0 --� O CO O N O N N co - V O O O (O O O O O 2) O C1 OC10 N W- W O MOOOONOOOOOOOO N I 01 000 C10 0000, N 00 0 0 O Cb N OD N V 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1 O O 0 0 O 00 000 NB D m a C cn zr D N�m O to (n 0 3 C UKE s -'` 1583 LF 16 K LEGEND: 2545 LF = LENTTH OF SWALE W 13 K = AREA TO BE MOWED IN THOUSAND SF (K) Blue Highlighted Swales are "in Contract" ---- = Red Highlighted Swales are "Not in Contract" N S Lb EXHIBIT A - Swale Mowing Areas1b 1 1 B Forest Lakes MSTU - Quail Run Golf Course PINE RIDGE RD + FAlRwAY +�t0 FAWWAY #11 LA" 12 J' awuL 2545 LF RUM 13 K (5 ft. GOLF CLUB width LAKE HOUSE 9t *A d� l r0 �,_ 0) J L K Y TOTAL SWALE AREA �� 256,000 SF V �� V� o va SWALES TOTAL AREA 4- (INCLUDES CP AREA NOT IN ' CONTRACT y� 182,000 SF MOWING IN CONTRACT C\1 71.09% OF SWALES ARE uw `- 1275 LF 13 K `" WET AND /OR SEASONALLY FPJRWAY WET VJUR tAV #s UKE s -'` 1583 LF 16 K LEGEND: 2545 LF = LENTTH OF SWALE W 13 K = AREA TO BE MOWED IN THOUSAND SF (K) Blue Highlighted Swales are "in Contract" ---- = Red Highlighted Swales are "Not in Contract" N S Lb 16I 1 gg Tabulation of Quotes Received for Forest Lakes MSTU Golf Course Swale Mowing: Company Single Mowing Cost (182,000 sf) Hannula Landscape $1,092.00 ( x4 ) = Monthly _ $4,368.00 Caribbean Lawn $825.00 = $3,300.00 Commercial Land $800.80 = $3,203.20 Vila & Son -0- _ -0- NO QUOTE Based on quotes received under terms and conditions of Bid 09 -5239 (BCC Approved 07/28/09; item 16.8.20); Hannula Landscaping, Inc. 28131 Quails Nest Lane H A N N U LA Bonita Springs, FL 34135 -6932 LANwcAP"G " 2Gff "I *r- Phone: (239) 992 -2210 Fax: (239) 498 -6818 Liz DeLeon 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, Fl 34104 (239) 252 -8192 lizdeleon@colliergov.net Description T r) Proposal t �s 3/17/10 10 -00251 PV*Ct 1741 Incidentals Qty Ulm Cast Total Pine Ridge Road pricing per 09 -5239 RFQ #005 contract (Pest Control: Spray Ficus Hedge below Pines for White Flies - + MOT 1 day) Groundcover, Shrubs, & Trees: Insecticides & Fungicides 40 148.00 5,920.00 Thank you for your business. Total $5,920.00 PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE Person signing this agreement must be authorized to enter such agreements and have read and agree to all specifications, terms, amounts, payments and procedures contained herein. Customer Signature Title Date April 12, 2010 Colilir Couxty Mr. Darryl Richard, Project Manager Collier County Alternative Transportation Modes Department 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 CONTRACT #08 -5060 PROJECT Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project F -58 Sidewalks, Lighting Improvements, and Roadway Tree Plantings — Continuing Services Dear Mr. Richard: As requested, we have prepared the following scope of services for your review and approval. Project Scope The scope of this project consists of a detailed site investigation of the project area to identify opportunities and constraints for possible sidewalk alignment. We will evaluate existing site features in relation to the county supplied site survey base plans and format and update as necessary to produce generally current base maps for design purposes. At this time, we will also identify a preferred alignment strategy which minimizes stormwater impacts by reviewing the existing system and potential trouble areas. We will then prepare conceptual sidewalk plans for presentation to the MSTU Committee, CATM Project Manager and MSTU civil engineer for review and consideration. These will be illustrative for clarity and ease of communication of the primary sidewalk and landscape design elements. Once approved, we will commence with construction drawings preparation which will involve a series of 30 %, 60% and 100% plan set submittals to the CATM Project Manager and MSTU civil engineer for review and comment. Upon receipt of review comments, we will modify the plans as directed for each subsequent submittal until 100% complete. We will attend the monthly MSTU Committee meetings throughout this project scope of services where we will present status reports of project progress including opinions of probable cost at the 60% and 100% stages. Design Team Windham Studio will prepare the conceptual sidewalk and lighting plans, layout and dimension plans, planting plans and specifications. Agnoli Barber and Brundage will prepare supplemental stormwater drainage plans and specifications, street lighting plans and specifications (TR Transportation as their subconsultant). James Abney and Associates will complete the Irrigation Plans and specifications. Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott @windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com 1 "Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project F -58 Sidewalks, Lighting FOREST LAKES MSTU BOND PROJECT F -58 SCOPE OF SERVICES TASK 050. Project Management 050.1 Attend Forest Lakes MSTU Advisory Committee Meetings 050.2 Submit Plans to CATM Project Manager for review and comment (30 %, 60 %, 100 %) (Includes Planting, Irrigation, Civil Engineering and Lighting Plans) 050.3 Meet with CATM Project Manager and MSTU civil engineer to review plans (30 %, 60 %, 100 %) (Includes Planting, Irrigation, Civil Engineering and Lighting Plans) 050.4 Subconsultant coordination (Plan review / coordination, site review, status reports) 50.5 Prepare Opinion of Probable Cost (60 %, 100 %) and Bid Tabular (100 %) (Includes Planting, Irrigation, Hardscape and Lighting) TASK 100. Sidewalk Design 100.1 Sidewalk Layout and Dimension Plans( 100 %) 100.2 ABB, Supplemental Stormwater Drainage Plans and Specs (30 %, 60 %, 100 %) TASK 200. Lighting Design 200.1 ABB, TR Transportation, Lighting Plans and Specs (60% and 100 %) 200.2 Design and specify lighting for the Monument Directional Sign at the clubhouse and proposed directional sign at the corner of Woodshire Lane and Forest Lakes Boulevard. TASK 300. Planting Design 300.1 Sidewalk Planting Plans and Specifications (30 %, 60 %, 100 %) 300.2 300.2 Supplemental Planting Plans and Specifications (30%,60%, 100 %) (Includes monument signs at Pine Ridge Rd and Woodshire Lane, the directional monument signs at the clubhouse and proposed at the intersection of Woodshire Lane and Forest Lakes Blvd and the entry landscape medians at Pine Ridge Rd and Forest Lakes Blvd. TASK 400. Irrigation Design 400.1 Complete irrigation site investigation for the Woodshire Lane east ROW area, the Monument signs at Pine Ridge Road and Woodshire Lane, the directional monument sign at the clubhouse and the entry landscape medians at Pine Ridge Road and Forest Lakes Boulevard. Complete Irrigation Plans and Specifications to irrigate the areas (60 %, 100 %) Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott @windhamstudio.com www.wIndharnstudio.com 2 ;' .I )F 08 -5060 "Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project F -58 Sidewalks, Lighting TASK 500. Site Furnishings and Signage Design 500.1 Finalize site furnishings package and prepare location plans and typical details for furnishings installation (Bench, trash receptacle, picnic table, street sign, mailbox) 500.2 Coordinate with sign contractor to design a directional monument sign for the corner of Woodshire Lane and Forest Lakes Boulevard which matches the sign at the clubhouse. TASK 600. Services During Construction 600.1 Attend pre- construction meeting and construction related site meetings and site visits for sidewalk and plant material layout review. 600.2 James Abney and Associates will complete irrigation related construction assistance as follows - Attend pre- construction meeting and construction related site meetings and site visits for irrigation related issues. FEES: Please see attached Windham Studio Scope Breakdown and Fee Matrix Design Services fees will be billed monthly per the attached fee schedule and Contract #08- 5060 Schedule `B'. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this scope of services in order to assist the county and the Forest Lakes Drainage M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee in improving the district. Sincerely, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000 -1516 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: Scott @windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com 3 l~0 d a C C O Mi CL OW V � N o C O v u°i a IL y a O IL O C m N st a a J �pxO Y y LL N 3 c 0 •a r a c A F C a C Up U n a a; d V C 7 U1 t e Z H J 2 O U 66 C.0 i in a` N t�J f N O O O O N 400000 oS$ SS$ oS$ o$ SSg Sgg :: N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M O G; O O qqq O Lt Gj N O Rog N I O 8O N N oO S 8S O N N N J �p J J yy J J J yN J NyN J J N J yN J N(/N� N N J yN JJ O O N 8O lV O 8Q SO N VJN J J N N N J N N VJ tpN J J {Oy N J N J N N J N N J NNN J J N J N fA J J N J {O{yy N N N J S g 8$ °088 SS8 SA 8 b• ♦pa n �D1�(p� N N N W O n NNf V] N O O N S N O N N O O NON O N N 0 0 ONN M c N N O <tCb N N O N N O O 00 N N R 0 OdO N 0 N N 0 0 000 N N 0 N N O f OI N, f N N O �COb N f N O N N N o O O NCS! N N O S O N M N N O O tG 'OO O N O N N O O OO N N N 0 (V O N N 0 fV N N O O O C N G O O N M O N M M N N O O N O N N O O N O N O O O N N O G• N 0 0 N 0 N N O O N O N N O N O w l O N N m t 0 1 p 0 0 O O t o O O JJ N tV O a o e S 0 - o > m o o H m J 9"A9 a�i'3 dsm ¢Ts u caciB �pE aye yam so Qx.4oe g 3 ro g � m E c G N C 9 �C E C .. w c mN �3 O 4 r 3 w 5 d mg gmg 31 �E N C¢ j $ q E s" 4 3 IL tI yy C gs .$ m % z00 g a� jy w-C � Q d 32 i6 (aw 0 NQ oao o0 00 0 0 OOO 12 1NN �%1 1611 89 Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project F -60 March 25, 2010 COUnty Mr. Darryl Richard, Project Manager Collier County Alternative Transportation Modes Department 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 CONTRACT #08 -5060 PROJECT Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project F -60 Forest Lakes Boulevard Cul -de -sac Improvements Dear Mr. Richard: As requested, we have prepared the following scope of services for your review and approval. Project Scope The scope of this project consists of a detailed site investigation of the cul -de -sacs to evaluate existing landscape features in relation to the county supplied site survey base plans and format and update as necessary to produce generally current base maps for design purposes. We will coordinate 2 -3 public information meetings for the cul -de -sac residents to discuss their design goals and objectives. We will then prepare conceptual cul -de -sac island plans for presentation to the MSTU Committee, CATM Project Manager and MSTU civil engineer for review and consideration. These will be illustrative for clarity and ease of communication of the standard island dimensions, proposed landscape designs and waste collection pads. Once reviewed and agreed upon, we will then present the viable concepts to the cul -de -sac residents in 2 -3 public information meetings. We anticipate completing 8 -10 typical landscape designs which could be alternated throughout the 22 cul -de -sacs for variety and interest while maintaining themed repetition. The cul -de -sac islands will accommodate 2 waste containers per cul -de -sac residence blended with a modified Type 'F' curbing and the overall island aesthetics as a planned design component. Once approved, we will commence with typical cul -de -sac island construction drawings preparation which will involve a series of 30 %, 60% and 100% plan set submittals to the CATM Project Manager and MSTU civil engineer for review and comment. Upon receipt of review comments, we will modify the plans as directed for each subsequent submittal until 100% complete. We will attend the monthly MSTU Committee meetings throughout this project scope of services where we will present status reports of project progress including opinions of probable cost at the 60% and 100% stages. Desian Team Windham Studio will prepare the cul -de -sac typical conceptual plans, layout and dimension plans, planting plans and specifications. Agnoli Barber and Brundage will prepare supplemental civil details and specifications. Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scoff @windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com 1 s Ir 08 -5060 Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project F -60 FOREST LAKES MSTU BOND PROJECT F -60 SCOPE OF SERVICES TASK 050. Project Management 050.1 Attend Forest Lakes MSTU Advisory Committee and Public Information Meetings 050.2 Submit Plans to CATM Project Manager (30 %, 60 %, 100 %) 050.3 Meet with CATM Project Manager and MSTU civil engineer to review plans (30 %, 60 %) 050.4 Subconsultant coordination (Plan review / coordination, site review, status reports) 050.5 Prepare Opinion of Probable Cost (60 %, 100 %) and Bid Tabular (100 %) TASK 100. Landscape Island Design (Construction Documents) 100.1 Base Map Formatting and Site Investigation 100.2 Conceptual Typical Cul -de -sac Designs 100.3 Typical Cul -de -sac Layout and Dimension Plan (30 %, 60 %, 100 %) 100.4 Typical Cul -de -sac Planting Plans (30 %, 60 %, 100 %) 100.5 ABB, Supplemental details and specifications (30 %, 60 %, 100 %) FEES: Please see attached Windham Studio Scope Breakdown and Fee Matrix Design Services fees will be billed monthly per the attached fee schedule and Contract #08- 5060 Schedule 'B'. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this scope of services in order to assist the county and the Forest Lakes Drainage M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee in improving the district. Sincerely, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000 -1516 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott @windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com 2 r J C O Opp O� O Opp Ea w O Op Opp O S O a 0 c ,o LL a c os N N N O N NNNN y a 3 m N LL. U c c f' d o m c t0 F d a c a C 2 m° N VJ O Y Y ' a O Y 3 US " L°L LL m O N ai 0Q~ U j Q-..� W ~ 23 N W 2 O U d V U CO 0000�g� �000$ vRC4 o c! Ne b N m V N NN N 60 NN OOOOQ OOO tOp V 00 O 6 w J J to J J J J w J J J O Opp O� O Opp Smp O Op Opp O S 1( 0 , Cp it�i N 14 �p p tp �OI�S fop N N N N O N NNNN N NNN69 NN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N CD O f0 1D (V tG tG OD O � O O O O O S oQS O N 0 10 N N N 69 v WNW I 169 N N N —1N X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O C J N O O O N OC tG N OD C O O O O 0Oppp fO(pp tOtpp O V 0 0 7 1 N O V N N H N NI QI I O O O N O O O O 00000 V m a0 C O O O O .- a ro o 0 0 o��a boo °o m o 0 0 1O-$ °m e 3 c o U H 0 oo c a v o J. °. oy d y A U Amo°$ E93 y r f0 _ a o t0 a a if E�.oaa o L'NaD c �- u9, U •S U E U. a ! Y� "' Q �O ��UUa C CL � d 6Q(a V1d JmUi�H6 R N C) N 0 0 0 0 0 O {y 1614' B9 n 1611 89 c 3 0 -q r N � N o r Co m H I I aK t. ?� l ,�r �k!�.,..w% +rv4m r� � L41 i SM ..+�' ! •'M r 7� y Fd O �r T W � rf!! ; E x ��g t�♦y '"� �+'. (('p) t _,p � A r��tl� y�. � ' " � � �� iii... '! F .fix 7k h i.( ,m wqL.. r*'"(tb �;� u�, � '' t `yA;v, L1 4,.. .�• �7� A d Gi` 3 tJ� , R { � b � r'g ' # •y V, ��i!' h A�y*kN rt #X '�. 1 dot r '�T� 'n Q' �1. z k d t y S r � y t 4 �A ""`��`� ,� .d :' ��.p_ y d 2` - �" k Ves 'b ✓ j r� 5i 43 it'.r* oV 401�m 3 o m is dr'}"7 K l a n4. tl1 y i0. y 'rY� f e w r.W 'Z�tte hS Cdw ^^9' i' 'a^V 6 +" 'rn�` r Pa`-� '.,r� � ,�q, •..YNrry s w� � it u 1 'F ''1 .tv t� t• �' •rn�� ' ° � � ,psi � � r`" n3,�� a rG, �� 3'¢ e fi � r 2 1M r � ,� �N s, / A� �,„., Yy � to * � %i� � �� M1 � �yy " ➢ Cr1� .: P 2 .1Y y} 4+ � A,y `, � � Y F � � �L ly � � �'� ��i J 0 ,, { N »V� i 4 rpi h >r f •% f� �y iy "' �� 7 Z Air y{ "C 4R • fD.. tk� 'µa t W "� } 2 ,y�i S br i5 '+�q a "A �"•`i`i y0 '�(9 wp� i m I � � °t: grt•Y _ � :{5 i e $` �r� 3 k�ar � �� h q � O } # 'M F .4 2 c D 7Q ' �? rr y � ' r a5 ✓ � '� F� ,. 7'zu,r �. ..1 B�c'f CL O k �;r N 1•41.r'V �. �r MtY, r "K.41"', r {��$ly 9e �� G� �Y'Z fS iSiY, `.FtP �Y; �r,G� ao ao '2 , M i 4�, y� W ;=H w ti T1 F� r t. N }�1A. .. £'f. " ' 3 cr .. z p s a 2ti d P t ,na �w3"b rL � '•. p s t"r y, p'rf Y+ w �r e � �tr�� !i"" Ci p ...'ti4 Vz 3Lt.u.r+.�- Y � .�i � � �' 4 ✓ ,, tra 'wr I r v a nai.� d Ora x'"e�v� <f- �� ei ✓ o{j',s �, """" t. t '° 1 i r. k F y w rr a i a,stm"r x, � .• m �.' �' � �F' 4'''+�� A (� r �i"�''��!r�i'�., � �tl �i+ r. _;.�W � N ` W`^��c) ".';S �.�'r'�i ��...��'+��1�f'd �`dp' �; °+ w d Nw 0 m O y N 0 5. N p , s c 3 0 -q r N � N o r Co m H I I 16FI Bg - 14 c 3 O r N n W Cl) '� r FOREST LAKES RECEIVED AUG 16 2010 1611 Bg ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE M.S.T.U. ..' Fiala ADVISORY COMMITTEE Halas 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH Henni NAPLES, FL 34104 Coyle Colett April 14, 2010 Minutes ,goard of cminxy commissioners I. Call to order Meeting was called to order at 10:04 a.m. by Robert Jones. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Harold Bergdoll, William Seabury, George Fogg, Robert Jones County: Tessie Sillery— Operations Coordinator, Darryl Richard — Project Manager, Caroline Soto — Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich— Manager Landscape Operations Other: Chris Tilman — Malcolm Pirnie, Richard Barry- Public, Paul Meunier - Public, Darlene Lafferty — Kelly Services III. Approval of Agenda Add. Vll. A. Letter RE: Main Entrance William Seabury moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by George Fogg. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Add. VII. B. Trimming Australian Pines Motion was amended to add VII. B. Trimming of Australian Pines. William Seabury moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by George Fogg. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Darryl Richard reported Secretarial Services are being provided by Juristaff in place of Kelly Services. IV. Approval of Minutes — February 10, 2010 V. Approval of Minutes — March 17, 2010 William Seabury moved to approve the minutes of February 10, 2010 and March 17, 2010 as submitted. Second by George Fogg. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Mist Caren: Deb: 1 Item t 'pies to: 1611 gg VI. Transportation Services A. Budget Report - Caroline Soto reviewed the following: (See attached) • Collected Revenue Structure $201,268.07 • Available Operating Expense $36,601.86 Discussion ensued concerning Operating Expense $36,601.86. Darryl Richard perceived the available monies are sufficient for current Project activity and the issue will be revisited at a later time. Darryl Richard stated a meeting is scheduled with Mark Isackson to review the proposed FY11 Budget. Staff will report to the Committee if Budget changes are made at the meeting with Mark Isackson. Caroline Soto stated the closed P.O.s cannot be removed (per Committee request) from the monthly Budget Report as the Budget will be out of balance. Staff noted the closed P.O.s will be removed October 1, 2010 (new Fiscal Year.) B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard / Chris Tilman - Malcolm Pirnie - The Forest Lakes Master Project List was distributed. (See attached) Darryl Richard reported the following information: • Recommended addressing Maintenance activity on an individual basis in lieu of a bundled Contract • A meeting was conducted with Contractors (Golf Course) on mowing the Golf Course Swales - Observed the Swales were mowed (by golf course) - Specialized mowing equipment is not required - The Swales were mowed historically by the Golf Course - In the event the Swales are wet the Golf Course does not mow them • Suggested mowing via carte blanche (by the MSTU) • Reviewed Exhibit A Golf Course Swales (See attached) - Total area - 256,000 sq. ft. - Day of inspection 182,000 sq. ft. deemed as wet - No standing water was present • During dry season 20% of Swales have standing water - Dollar weed is present in 70% of Swales (indication of very wet condition) • MSTU monies may be spent to ensure the Storm Water System is functional Robert Jones stated the MSTU intention was to assist the Golf Course on mowing the Golf Course Swales when the Gordon River 2 1611 B9 AMIL Gate outflow problem is corrected and water is removed from Forest Lakes Community. Chris Tilman gave a status report on the AMIL Gate Project: • Peak flow is 600 CFS (cubic feet per second) • Models were completed by Malcolm Pirnie and ABB to widen the Channel - Corrects 1000 ft. of blockage - De- silting will be conducted (700 ft. beyond the 1000 ft. blockage) - Subsequently the Gordon River extension stabilization level will be maintained at 3.5 elevation year round (control elevation of AMIL Gate) - During storm events the water will stage up for 1 -2 days (18 inches or less) • Consequently extended periods of high water elevation (Forest Lakes Community) will cease to exist and the outfall of the system will be maintained at 3.5 ft. • The Forest Lakes system (north of blockage point) has 1 ft. -2 ft. higher elevation than the downstream end - The Forest Lakes water elevation is currently 4.5 ft. - 5 ft. • Predicted the Project will be underway mid to late summer (August 15th ) Darryl Richard recommended the MSTU approve an interim Maintenance Contract (CLM $3200.00 per month) to mow the Golf Course Swales. Discussion took place on the past and present water table within the Forest Lakes Community. George Fogg perceived the following: • The water table has remained the same (in the Community) • Water level will not change at the outfall point - Water level change will occur at Graded areas (directs water flow to the lakes) Darryl Richard noted SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District) placed stipulations on structures that dictate outfall elevations throughout the Storm Water System. The Committee inquired on the amount of additional water that is held in the Drainage Swales compared to historical levels. Chris Tilman responded: • The amount of water routed to Drainage Swales remains the same • The System change was installation of an outfall line (South side Forest Lakes Blvd.) to swiftly pull water from the Roadways to Lakes 3 1611 89 • System was designed for the Lakes flow from North to South and water is discharged out - Consequently the Swale(s) dry out • Historically high River water levels existed - Resulting in lingering elevated levels in Swale ground water Harold Bergdoll conveyed Resident complaints on present (Swale) water conditions that did not previously exist. Chris Tilman reported the following issues: • Elevated water level conditions on Lake(s) 15 and 16 are present • The Swale(s) water level is lower on the Western side (compared to the Eastern side) Darryl Richard conveyed potential reasons for inconsistent water levels (East versus West): • Irrigation leak • Golf Course water (gravitating to the area) - Requested a water usage reading from the Golf_ Course_ Harold Bergdoll expressed dissatisfaction with the water being dumped on the Golf Course. Chris Tilman noted the system was designed pull water from the Roadways and to run through the Golf Course. Darryl Richard noted Swale(s) are designed to hold water (as needed) therefore they are not guaranteed to be dry. Harold Bergdoll noted Golf play is affected on Fairway (3) due to standing water. After much discussion it concluded further assessment was needed on the areas that impact Golf play. Pam Lulich suggested the Committee submit a list to Staff that identifies the areas of concern (MSTU Committee and Forest Lakes Residents.) William Seabury moved to approve a not exceed amount of $23,000 to CLM to mow the swa /es. Second by Robert Jones. Motion carried 3 -1, George Fogg voted no. Darryl Richard presented a quote $5,920.00 (Landscape Operations Staff) to spray white flies on the Ficus Hedge located north of Fairway 10, 11, and 12. Robert Jones moved to approve $5,920.00 (to spray white flies.) Second by Harold Bergdoll. George Fogg requested verification if the Ficus Hedge is located within the MSTU Boundary. 4 1611 gg After discussion the motion was withdrawn pending legal review by the County Attomey. George Fogg requested Staff confer with the County Attorney and to provide a response to the Committee (for the MSTU to provide insect control outside the MSTU boundary.) Darryl Richard reviewed Proposals by Windham Studio: (See attached) • Project (F -58) - $74,052.42 • Project (F -60) - $18,974.00 George Fogg moved to approve Scott Windham (Windham Studio) be awarded Contracts for F -58 Project $74,052.42 and F -60 Project $18,974.00. Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Darryl Richard announced the BCC awarded Project (F -53) Lake Stabilization Contract to Quality Enterprises. Harold Bergdoll left 11:29 a.m. Darryl Richard announced a letter of appreciation was drafted for Virginia Donovan commemorating her years of service on the Forest Lakes MSTU Committee. VI. Old Business A. Gordon River Maintenance Project (Stormwater Dept. Project) - Previously discussed Vl. B. VII. New Business A. Letter RE: Main Entrance George Fogg reviewed a letter submitted to Collier County Sheriff Department by Rebecca Fogg concerning traffic safety issues (Forest Lakes Blvd.) Additionally he reviewed the fesponse letter from Chris Gonzales. (See attachments) .Staff will forward the attachments to Traffic Operations and report developments to the Committee at the May 19, 2010 meeting. After discussion the following was concluded: • Additional patrols will be requested of the Sheriff Department • Signage will be reviewed by Malcolm Pirnie B. Trimming Australian Pines Robert Jones recommended delaying the trimming of Australian Pines until peak season is complete to avoid lane closures. Pam Lulich agreed to delay the trimming of the Australian Pines but stipulated it must be completed prior to hurricane season. 5 1611 B9 George Fogg moved to approve the delay of the pruning of the Australian Pines until after snowbird season and before the end of June. Second by Robert Jones. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. VIII. Public Comments Paul Meunier expressed interest on the behalf of the Golf Course in working with the Forest Lakes MSTU Committee on Projects. Tessie Sillery suggested a report on the progress and accomplishments of the Golf Course and Forest Lakes MSTU be published in the Golf Course newsletter. There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 11:55 P.M. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisory Committee �" ""t 41�' e- Robert Jones, Chi an These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented or amended meeting is June 9, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 31 DIr NI W J 161 t0 DO V 07 (T A W N O 10 f0 V 07 O A W N O t0 00 V Of t71 A W N -+ O W W V OI OI A W N -� mm - ww --I-i c»R OOOrTrMw2M vOZmcnm - 4- izc�C» -i �zzTc� fmACmi� �� D m> mmmo2mmi xc wm -mmo v QXx>D <mm-AX DmmzOOzzgmm mm��cZ�n�m��< Dz xxzzm = <- -mime 'TI --4 F- n <DZZm7cD_� -n ); m r to o� <�� zm-�i �D c ym �-a-� mO Opg z��pQODmcz�nmp- �DZCmi� rnMmppmm m --im - < G) x0zz�'- '- t_ <zm ;u— M-- �G) M - +O - zi -n mvii- �im XT�- �iDX -Z+pD '{ C) zcncn c �mw M.-j uj2 --q wi�m y --izm C ¢'m >Dpp coz -m 'a-iD Z - - - m �z C m n XX n�zm z nm z �m ZG z(ZZ MM - 0--�m,ZX cmn z <pp�D -4O mmZ� z O'T O �z m O Z �> DKm "{ OmmDm �mmm -f X D O r O n D rao mZn� mn�Xx m cn m m --4 O m m D r D x � 40 fA 4+ 6A fA 4+ fA 4► 696940 to 69 En Efl �GA to ea 16A (A (14419 '�A169 (A(A 4A M(A 46A �&n to t» to cfl vq t� t9 A A- W A ? 30 & N O A N �► D O O O ()7 W W W m 0 (OO � A -+ N O O V A -• 00 W W NO C -r -� --� O o N (A !O N� O A V O --� (T C. V W ON 0CD Cn O f.7i m NOO OOOON(T O N(O CT CA O OCT(T V co O 00 O O O N O N O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N O N O O 0000 ,� V 00 000 0 0 N O N O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N O N O O o 0 0 lbdblb O CO O) O (A O 000 000000 O C) C)O O) O O OOO 0OOO OO O� O 000 000000 O -� �0--� O O O_O_O 4+ M fA fA fA EA En 49 fA da 69 fA 6A EA EA fA EA EA !A EA CA 69 fA 6q EA 40 fA fA fA Eft 4rql 401469 EA 6A to i N► EA M fA fA ' I ' 1-4I4�N W 'J+IfAI 4►IfA EA A (17 O 07 O O 1 t0 (O 1 V O (i1 Co ' w (o o -+ -j (n o O O A N O O O W i P N �� (�m�� D�� pp rn (T mm � o (-n A W Cn -+ O w O O ---3 v M. (, 8 a) O O (n v � O O n (.n (A O m O O O Z Z Z m m CD m m O V O O O O(° A O O (T (T in O - O O , , .A O 9 491401E0 fA fA fA EA fA 6A fA fA fA fA EA 69 fA W �� (�m�� D�� pp m a aW. mm � W W Cn -+ O m C m _. CD CD ---3 v M. (, 8 a) O O (n v j m a < < < < < < < < < < < - m m m m m m m m m m m m m m. n (.n (A O m O n S o r n m 07 Z Z Z m m CD m m O V O O O O(° (T N (T (T in O - O O , , .A O V O O CO O O N O CT A O 9 (Al M1fA 69 fA 6A EA EA fA fA ifl 69 fA fn 6A fA "M� N O N O O O O O O (D O CO "IC) J V O �I A 4- 33 - A N a A W O O (O OD N -+ O O un (T i O W O O CT (T O O CO 0 0 w N O O O V O CO O (O Cl 0 J N O O O N O Ln O N ' 0 0 1 fA 69 fA 47 iA fA fA fA m co O N O o rn o O v O n O 3 3 3 N fA EA fA E9 D 3 7 CL ma OND A N r n (00 CWO v CO O V � CD 401 .A fA fA fA D O a• W E* al C" oov - Q (O (O N t0 -• A CO A cS O0 :U p f0., N N N N a�i N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0=) in O_ O N O O M c M �aaa > > > >n1 v.�� 00000 �n0 i-n' �3 c: c: a s v , CD a D D D D N y o o_ o O o° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 c v? 3 p� � m n 3 3 3 >> � � 0 � m c p p m 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 3 3 3 m� n1 W 0 -0 (D m D ;ou (n > (ncn 3 m. v. E TTTTTTT_mT -u m -u -u 3 r rm x0 ° 0 vo ,X.X.A (n c- E l0 m (D Gi `G G 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 >> Li L. (D m n cn c a a a ? � z z m m m' m' m m m'm m 5, CD m'm CD (° °� 0' r �' ° O Z CD m ° ° m c j 90 (n C(( N. '0 a) N a CD O CD 73 N A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A CJ1 j (T CT j (T (T CT CT CA ? T (T j (T U7 U7 j j CT j U CT (� �T (,T CT (T (,T j (T cn Cr (T Cn CT U7 < - cl 00 L" CT Ln CWT co CNO N O (n ((y, W D V 0) to W� CO C°)D O O co W O N N N O O O OWD .n. ,C).� (� (A -14 8 OD v A W v v W CD N A N o m N� -b- CP W A A CO W W A N co N CO co W CT A .-r COT N 00 (COO m (A -+ (n A (D W -+ OD A A O O CT O -+ CO A W V -I w O O W W �l o O W -+ V A 0 w 0 v r9 0) 2) ari v ar7 p xDr (n�v� �� 0 ��m U��cnc/) �� (�m�� D�� pp m a aW. mm � M CD 10 :3 3 OOOOOOOOOOOOOm m m C m _. CD CD ---3 v M. (, a) O O (n v Cn c c c c m a < < < < < < < < < < < - m m m m m m m m m m m m m m. n n m C) p -n (n (n 0 go 3 n S o r n m 07 Z Z Z m m CD m m < N N. N. N, N R N 51 5; aI' 41' oo m `< `< m O` j c m O m m O C O f0 3 D �' C (- `G `G `G `G. ID 3 o o (o m m 0 (o' (o' (o' (o n to' (fl 0: 0 � 3. � � K w � (n -1 -� ° ' �' m m m m c 0 0 'p = -O S 7 O (0 0 (0 (0 N m „�. .�. .�T � � .S. O m Z cn Cn Cn Cn in cn N Cn (n cn Cn in ("D CD v v T W o N N (Wj °< in Z Z N CAD o fO ;:w N o n m rn ? ?? ? 2 2 2? 2? Z? m m m CD ° Q 90 00 3� n n C m o ° to (n (n N "11 - - _�. Tl O CD ID 7q '30 �. o� r .mn-. (o ?I TI ?7 ?i TI -n N Q T » W (n (% cT (n cT rn rn �' O CT o 'O � (T in <» p ID .0+. C A n Ln D N O v w W C:) C 0 m m TI -T1 (n CT O W O (n m O. z. f0 CD ? m O Cn W oD A -� DDD CT m + T tT (T u7 T (T T T (Ti (17 C77 O , j O U7 CA T cN N o n D D m T MOO co O ooT m O - i- 4000o0000O0 OO°°OD A i n -4 Z Z Z J W cT �z CT 0 CO (T O w () W W Ln M M W W w W W M W W W (T z z z D D D 400 CD (o(oo (OA -o ((nMMMMMM(T(nrnrnw O V A 9 �V v CT CT (7 U7 (T CT �I CT CT CT CT DDD O O (A) -N o CT CT O OO 6 OD co (D 05 00 O ? O6 N A Efl EA 69 60 (A EA EA 6A 6A EA 6A EA fA 69 EA EA fA 6A fA fA (A EA K3 EA EA fA 6A EA 6A Efl fA 6A '/) fA 69 EA EA fA EA EA EA 6A rn z m O - �I -+ (A (T � r N O A Ou N A W N O (O m O A W N A m N (T A O (T A CT In W O A CT D O W (T �I N 041. O CT o m CT N O W (T -+ CD Cn O O N O U7 7 3 OD m N A m O O O w- --� A O O A Cl m 00 N co O O N CD O O A O A O O CT o --• O) �I W I O O 6666 (T O O A O O V W N O N O O O A -� N U7 O) O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O d1 4) 49 69 49 fA 44 fA fA fA fA fA fA 49 49 fA EA fA fA fA 49 fA 49 fA 69 fA fA EA fA 49 EA fA fA fA EA fA fA 49 fA fA fA fA fA n O J O O CWO CO -N+ CD CWO O O A (O N (A c y O W W N CD (A CT CT O O O CT N W V A W co 00 W A V N (D O (O N (T -1 CD (O A -1I N U7 m y (A O O O O -I O W O -! Co A CO CA (n O O Co -• (O CT CT M (O O (D CO O V v W (T 0 0 0 0- 0 o O O O N N (D J 00 O O O O -1 O O 0) V CT O (T O N W -+ w O O o 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •N CT o 0 0 0(D O CT O O Q. V co O O O - co N OD N -I O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O Cl U7 OD o Cl 0 0 O M c -i �v �X oto Cl) CO) "q C rl t�l Ln O cr Ln LL t �O a a� _H C 2 N d Y N V 0 LL. 88$W$$WW$8888 8 ei rqQ 00 8 1� a-1 Vf N N V! (4 N V1 �/! �O ei V} 1� V► f� V1 I� N O 1A Q v � rl r-1 4 �-1 e•1 ICp N O 8 rl V� M N N 4 V1 V) V1 c C M V ► d •V C _ M $ p LOA N p S O0p IA tA p p Ln Ln 4m QQ 8 M N tD IA M N IA N N O O 00 V1 1A C1 V> O 00 V} LA N U O � N '� VV 4^ C V► M� �' eel M C d VIP VIP 4^ M N V1 f0 C 2� $ O p pC p O p p n M p 6A N M Vp► v N v I, 0 0 " O O 'i ri N " a-1 N uj O V V$ ! V8 ► V0 1 V0 ! V1 IA O 00 V1 -C4 N N 1A 6f1 O V1 rl N W V> 4^ 4.10, M a V) O 8 p 8 p 0°0 1°n o tC 000 N N p Ih p p p N$ M p S Cp O Q O 1A ri .Cr �-1 1A O t0 M 00 00 V► m 41 N V► N C1 O LA P% O O 1� 01 C1 V., M i-1 �-1 ri u1 N C1 00 U 01 v k0 V> VF vv V1 e•1 N 00 V► V1 V1 01 � u a 1/1 %-1 4^ A^ V� r.j V} Ln M = C 88$8$$8 °0888$$$$ 8 O O 00 ei 01 a M 1� 00 N M V1 V1 O 1� O 1!1 Q M r1 ei .-1 �-1 01 r-1 O N V► V> V� V� V� lv0 V� �n +n <n w IAN O1 M A^ M N `"1 4^ .4i C U rl U a t� 0) Y C � a i "4 IA Ln O N o O N 8 LA LA O ri QQ QQ O OM O ,.1 Oa `D NO C 10 Q c � H u u u M eao ) LL LL LL LL 1L U. cz OAS 0� C C C 3 O u 3 3 ;,, AL as c c0 H `t `t � m EL �= c O w c .2- a a 0 a io 0, L ai LO `v ea O« s m IA N y O O O N C O o E U '= 3 3 U U �e }, a0+ UC U U LL 0 m O Io Ln Ln �o eM N M V to w n 00 Im O N Ln lzi E 0J 3 Solicitation per RFP 09 -5239 Forest Lakes MSTU Forest Lakes Entrance Maintenance - Quote per RFP 09 -5239 Project Mgr.: Darryl Richard Growth Managment Division - ATM Department 16 1 86S.nt: 5 P ackages Requested:3 Quotes Recieved: 3 Page 1 of 2 (? Forest Lakes Entrance Maintenace - Quote per Contract RFP 09.5239 Annual Contract for Landscape Maintenance Vendors CAR(BBfiAN FOREST LAKES BLVD MAIN ENTRANCE Exhibit 01 Section I. Basic Maintenance Functions 1• DESCRIPTION Median Mowing Ed in Quantit 52; Unit Each Side of the road Side ROW Mowing & Edging (Quantity 52; Unit each Weeding (Quantity 52; Unit Each Weekly Functions Irrigation Systems (Quantity 52; Unit Each General Site Pruning and Trimming (Quantity 52; Unit Each Trash Removal (Quantity 52: Unit Each Qn 52 52 52 52 52 52 UNIT $40.00 $ 40,00 $ 54 $ 40:00 $ 40,(10 $ 50,00 TOTAL 080-10. 52080;00. $2, .00: $2,080 00 08000 600;00 52 52 52'$ 52 '52 52 UNIT $24.00 $ 24.00 24.00 $ 2400 $ 24.00 $ 13.00 TOTAL $1,248.00 $1` 248.00 $1.248.00 $1248.00 '$1,248.00 $676.60 QTY 52 52 521S 521$ 52 52 UNIT $5.00 $ 5.00 40.00 35.00 $ 15.00 $ 30.00 TOTAL $260.00 $260.00 $2,080.00 $1,820.00 $780.00 $1,560.00 II. Section 11. Site Specific Maintenance Functions Canopy Tree and Palm Pruning A.1 Canopy Trees Ficus Tree Quanti 1 1 :00 $250.00 1 $ 60.00 $60.00 1 $250;00 $250.00 A.2 A.2 Palms - June Cabbage Palm JQuantity 3 3 $ 1500 $45.00 3 14.50 $43.50 3 $ 18.00 $54.00 B. Fertilization (County will supply granular fertilizer) Turf, Groundcover, Shrubs and Trees 8-2 -12 (Quantity 5 b s.: Unit Each Palms - So -Po-Ma 0-0-22 (Quantity 1 s.• Unit Each Perform Se uestrene Iron Drench Application (Quantity 1 20 -20 -20 with Ferromec AC 13-0-0 plus 6% Iron (Quantity 1 5.'$ 1 1 1 1&001 S 25.00 $30000 $300.00 $75.00 $2500 $3QD00 10 5 1 . 1 $ 3.50 45.00 $100,00 $ 100.00 $17.50 $45:00 $100,00 $100.00 5 1 1 1 ' $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 25.00 $ 25.00111 $25.00 $5.00 $25.00 5.00 C. Ornamental Spraying Groundcover, Shrubs & Trees: Insecticides & Fungicides (Quantity 1 Herbicides (Quantity 1 Turf; Insecticides &Fun Fungicide (Quantity 1 Herbicides (Quantity 1 1 1 1 1 $250.00 5250.00 $250,00 $250.00 $250.00' $250:0(} $250.00 $250,00 1 1 1 1 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $75.00 $75.00 $75:00 $75.00 1 1 1 1 $150.00 $ 75.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $75.00 $150.00 $150.00 D. Mulching (County will supply mulch) Organic Application (Quantity 463 Bags; Unit Each Note: Calculated using: 3,700 SF Coverage 2" mulch, 2 cu.ft. bags) 483 $ 0.65 93:55 463 $ 0.89 $412.07 463 $ 1.00 1 $463.00 Lane Closure - Maintenance of traffic to be included in unit pricing MAIN ENTRANCE -Total (Section- I -Iq: $15X8.55 57,894.07 $8,132.00 Woodshire Blvd. Maintenance - Quote per Contract RFP 09.5239 Annual Contract for Landscape Maintenance Vendors Woodshire Blvd. Entrance Exhibit 02 Section 1. Basic Maintenance Functions I• DESCRIPTION Side of the road (Side ROW) Mowing (Quantity 52; Unit each); ROW Edge #7 (West), and #01 (East) Weeding (Quantity 52; Unit Each at si na a area #4 only) Weekl Functions Winn -lion S stems Quanti 52; Unit Each at si na a area #4 General Site Pruning and Trimming (Quantity 52 ; Unit Each); Signage area #4 and Edge #7j Trash Removal Quanti 52 ;Unit Each ;all areas Q 52 52 fit 52 UNIT $ 40,00 TOTAL $2080.0Q 4-40.0W0,$2,0W0.'A0l0 0 0 0 QTN 52 52 52 52 52 UNIT $ 48.00 $ 24.00 $ 35'00 $ 2500 $ 13.00 TOTAL $2,496.00 $1,248.00 $1,820.00 $1,300.00 $676.00 QTY 52 52 52 52 5213 UNIT $ 10.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 20ROW 20.00 TOTAL $520.00 $1,560,00 $1,560.00 $1,040.00 $1,040.00 11. Section 11. Site Specific Maintenance Functions -TT Canopy Tree and Palm Pruning Canopy Trees Live Oak Tree (Quantity 3 locations #6 and #2 3 00 00 3 15;00 $45.00 3 $150.00 $450.00 A.2 Palms Cabbage Palm (Quantity 3 near intersection w/ Forest Lakes Blvd. 3 5600:00 3 $ 14.50 $43.50 3 $ 18.00 III. CL �a',SURFACE pF 4 C' EVERTS erserlion uif Fweat Lakes Blvd 5� $10O 00 $5;2QO,Oi) 52 $ 5.00 $280.00 52 $ 10.00 .00 $520.00 Lane Closure - Maintenance of traffic to be included in unit pricing WOODSHIRE BLVD. - Total (Sections WI): $18,860,00 $7,888.50 $8,744.00 Excavation at Fairway 017 and Misc. Maintenance - Quote per Contract RFP 09 -5239 Annual Contract for Landscape Maintenance Vendors GENERAL MAINTANANCE ITEMS FAIRWAY #17 EXCAVATION; GRADING; AND SODDING 1• DESCRIPTION Removal of undetermined uanti of soil which is blockin swale in Fairway #17 Q UNIT I TOTAL QTN UNIT TOTAL QTY UNIT TOTAL topography Replant solid with Tifton 419; Swale is to be graded to'match' the adjacent swale QUOTE AS LUMP SUM 1 $600:00 $=.Do 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 1 $850.00 $850.00 II. Misc.Maintenance Items A.1 MAIN ENTRANCE: REMOVAL OF PALM IDENTIFIED AS #01 QUOTE AS LUMP SUM 1 00 $200;00 1 $400.00 $400,00 1 $250.00 $250.00 A.2 MAIN ENTRANCE: REMOVAL OF PALM IDENTIFIED AS #02 QUOTE AS LUMP SUM 1 $2000D -n- 1 45000 50 00 1 100 00 100 00 Page 1 of 2 (? Solicitation RFP 09 1611 CARIBBEAN Bq per -5239 Forest Lakes Entrance Maintenance - Quote per RFP 09.5239 Forest Lakes MSTU Project Mgr.: Darryl Richard Notices Sent: 5 Growth Managment Division - ATM Department A.3 WOOD SHIRE: REMOVAL OF TREE LIMB ON TREE IDENTIFIED AS #03 Packages R 3 9 eque Quotes Recieved: ved: 3 Page 2 of 2 0/0 Forest Lakes Entrance MaMtenace - Quote per Contract RFP 00.1;239 Annual Contract for Landscape MaiMaanee Vendors CARIBBEAN . A.3 WOOD SHIRE: REMOVAL OF TREE LIMB ON TREE IDENTIFIED AS #03 QUOTE AS LUMP SUM 1 75.00 5.00 1 200. .00 1 S 85.00 $85.00 A.3 WOODSHIRE: REMOVAL OF PEPPER BUSH IN AREA IDENTIFIED AS #04 QUOTE AS LUMP SUM Excavation at Fairway #17 and Misc. Maint. Total (Sections W1): 1 $ 5000 MOD S1 12500 1 5200:00 00 5$2W00 1 $30000 $app OD $$30D.00 On Call Nec. Maintanarwe - Quote per Contract RFP 09 -8239 Annual Contract for Landscape Maintenance Vendors Irrigation Supervisor r man hour): DESCRIPTION Q UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL Q UNIT TOTAL L Irri adon Technician man hour): 1 $40.00 $40.00 1 $45.00 $45.00 1 $835.00 $65.00 II. Laborer/Helper r man hour): 1 $45.00 $45.00 1 $35.00 $35.00 1 $55.00 $55.00 III. Stump Grinder & Operator (per hour cost 1 $150.00 $160.00 1 $75.00 $75.00 1 $150.00 $150.00 IV. Bobcat R Operator r hour cost 1 $160.00 $150.00 1 $75.00 $75.00 1 $125.00 $125.00 On Call Services Total (Sections 1-IV): $365,00 5230.00 1 $385.00 Grlbbean: $38078.58 Hamula: Commercial: $18,886.00 Page 2 of 2 0/0 tom ow ■ M U. O r Yl Gl W 2 Z W F- W 5 W Q H •I 1 r w- CD 'O O co) 6 O .0 i m C O A A V x W ti LL c O O �o 3 N M� �s W i X W Ws WillFor, Wo `r. 'i c 3 0 ;ate y � '� C M GD V m U A W N 3- 71 A 11 T T $ -C A z z w z a 3 mw fi !+ W I Id 2g w o. V Y �• p i w 9 m o 0/ °1 � a � G x w r m N a w w Tgw ID c CD z a N S 3 r x p 7 n `i $ g o31 m D a S c Q S O m y w L Q (vD it 8 $pn C n y 7 :-L .:`-iL to �D �fDD mpp O fD t $ Go ,QN, ` D NQ ` D W A7 o 8 m r j A 3 c�T c� c7 0 a1 N � 40 w v O rn m 3 a v O O O $ b 0 01 OD Ny Ol71 OoW1+ � r ONE L W A w dpi' O V E^ r w OD ?� d; o N p� fT 8 n ^ X3 m 4 OD A Gn N 8 O w 'A Cl) H 14 d; O W N rn OD W 9 N to � � H & fT $ w Q m A Gp � e3 83i $ nA to �� to $'a m a a p a ern mr�+ ZD ��'�a Gnu+► f7 0^ (� () n °3 A'g pp tS 0z N �j "� `2 �, �$ C `�8��'N` �$4433`S� c°� g ��,$ 7 o 11 *1 4z�e. $ tso� 7� �f. 8 T_, Q V $ —v�6 . - +a $ g !a 3 N v_Qg � •- W b W un�a y �, { al T .? ATQ S a f1 v g o A o • C ?,$ 3 e w m N � 8 T HO OR O �•� W 3 °n� O O T m m A'�� 0 q0 0 �p � �+, Vl��G cnO AsJ V O jjrn� �P p Q + QgC1 g W ��. � �fl� 11 V m A r OV1� `��Qj' YQ� a7 C) .` _ ° F ^ 7 1p a w y gws g O• Q po 3 G'O� g ci .. •p paWA��3 fC x3 V ? m Vn O IG rn 'ln 7 O Ci 0 aCn pqS T � Q fG O a y t9 �3 � •d ,t�S� lC • 3 g• ef $ arG' Q, c 3 0 ;ate y � '� C Z M m . 1 � D y m m m m v v CD m p p Z v Zv v CZ ZW�O° p m9 mO m2 D n2 r Dfya �n m Zm -mu q v DZwm w -+omz C 0 to cn m mm vz�0 A D AzzD m F5 cvn 4 N N P 9 A D � w CA w N W CC" a r 16 li I 89 c 3 0 1 � � N N � w —Ni � C N r O m 2 `II 11 71 71 -.41 T � 11 CA4I s o 9 a CA w � x � a p � 5t v O N d O c u�i O c N m c Ch N � � 0 N � C v Q CL v 3 2L 3-' cr �g c 3r � � m g m rn C V m a g $ Q Z5 0 y, OH O � 0 � a N n O m pp � CA m 3 Cl CC R pp 7 CO a O gg O Y T 3 g O na p� OD IlOaa. Z m y &t 77 Cp Willi�u Pr w- i g g On $ -$ ,a Sal O m C •� � K y Ol c 3 0 1 � � N N � w —Ni � C FOREST LAKES REC 11� C. AUG 16 2313 3mm of country Commissioners 1. I 1-P L-B 9 ✓ Halas Henning Coyle _ ROADWAY AND DRAINAGW. +) ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 May 19, 2010 Minutes A. Call to order Meeting was called to order at 10:02 a.m. by Robert Jones. A quorum was established. B. Attendance Members: Harold Bergdoll (Excused), William Seabury (Excused), George Fogg, Robert Jones, Richard Barry County: Tessie Sillery— Operations Coordinator, Darryl Richard — Project Manager, Caroline Soto — Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich— Manager Landscape Operations, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst Other: Chris Tilman — Malcolm Pirnie, CPL David Krantz - Sheriff's Office, Darlene Lafferty — Juristaff Robert Jones introduced Richard Barry as a Member of the Forest Lakes MSTU Advisory Board. Discussion took place on meeting procedures and was concluded an Orientation will be implemented with future Committee Members (by Staff) on meeting procedures. Tessie Sillery will provide Richard Barry with an introductory packet for appointed Committee Members. Staff will schedule a field inspection for the Committee and the event will be publicly advertized. III. Approval of Agenda George Fogg moved to approve the agenda as presented. Second by Richard Barry. Motion was amended to add. Vll. A. Summer Schedule V. C. Sheriff Patrol George Fogg moved to approve the motion as amended. Second by Richard Barry. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. Misc. Comes: Dabs: Item # Copies to: 1611 99 IV. Approval of Minutes — April 14, 2010 Remove: Pg 2, VI. B., bullet 3 in entirety Change: Pg 4, Vl. B., paragraph 3, line 2, should read. Chris Tilman noted the "original' system was designed to pull water from the Roadways and to run through the Golf Course. Pg. 5, VII. B., line 1, should read. Robert Jones recommended delaying the trimming of Australian Pines until peak season is completed to avoid "Pine Ridge Rd. " lane closures during season." George Fogg moved to approve minutes of April 14, 2010 as amended. Second by Richard Barry. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Transportation Services Sheriff Patrol CPL David Krantz gave an update on traffic enforcement in the Forest Lakes Community: • The roads are deemed as private property as the MSTU pays for road upgrades • A Study is required as Roads are improperly posted with inconsistent speed limits • An agreement with the Association is needed to enforce traffic in the Community Michelle Arnold stated the MSTU is a County entity and the roads (Forest Lakes Community) are not private roads. Darryl Richard stated Malcolm Pirnie and Traffic Operations will generate the study. The Committee expressed concern of traffic hazards at the following locations: o Shopping area that is posted as no left turn (off of Pine Ridge Road) 0 5 way intersection on Pine Ridge Road (at the Entrance by the Club house) is violated at every light change CPL David Krantz suggested adjusting the intersection timing sequence to reduce the amount of potential accidents. Staff will coordinate a meeting with Traffic Operations, CPL David Krantz. Malcolm Pirnie and Michelle Arnold to address Traffic issues. A. Budget Report — Caroline Soto announced she was reassigned to the CAT Department and introduced Gloria Herrera as the Budget Analyst. Robert Jones complimented Caroline Soto on the excellent service she provided to the Forest Lakes MSTU. N 1611 B9 Caroline Soto reviewed the following: (See attached) • Outstanding Revenue Structure $8,519.41 • Available Operating Expense $25,953.50 Discussion ensued concerning canceling the June meeting. The next meeting is scheduled on July 14tH George Fogg moved to skip the June meeting unless there is action that needs to be taken and (if needed the Committee) can call a special meeting. Second by Richard Barry. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard / Chris Tilman - Malcolm Pirnie - The Forest Lakes Master Project List was distributed. (See attached) Project (F -62) Maintenance Dredging of Lake 8 • Project is open due the request for payment is pending (by Wright Construction) • A Change Order was submitted to remove Pepper Bush Robert Barry reported a homeowner is using pond water to irrigate (Forest Lakes Blvd. by Lake 8.) Proiect (F -56) South Woodshire Ditch Improvements o RFQ 08- 5011 -17 Quotes were reviewed (See attached) - Haskins is the lowest bid $314,312.00 - Haskins has an Annual Contract (with the County) - Anticipate mid August start date for Construction George Fogg moved to award to the low bid (Haskins $314,312.00) based on Staff and Engineer recommendation and proceed as quickly as they can. Second by Richard Barry. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. Gordon River Maintenance Project (Stormwater Dept Project) Chris Tilman reported the Project was not included in FY2010 Budget (Stormwater Department.) Staff will confer with the Stormwater Department as the Project is a high priority. Darryl Richard reviewed bid tabulations to maintain both Entrances to Forest Lakes (Forest Lakes Blvd. and Woodshire Blvd.): (See attached) Robert Jones reported the Golf Course General Manger is collecting monies from contributing Communities (in Forest Lakes) for 3 1611 B9 maintenance. He expressed dissatisfaction that the rate was raised and the maintenance is not being performed. Darryl Richard continued • CLM is lowest bid $16,856.00 (base bid) • CLM is presently performing Golf Course mowing Pam Lulich suggested presenting the CLM Bid to the Golf Course General Manager and request contribution for Maintenance cost. After much discussion it was concluded a contribution by the Golf Course will require BCC approval. George Fogg moved to award the Maintenance as per the bids (presented) to the low bidder CLM $16,856.00 and proceed forthwith. Second by Richard Barry. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. Rob Barry conveyed a request by the Golf Course for pump rental reimbursement $142.80 to remove water from the 14th hole. The hole was flooded due to removal of the drain. Chris Tilman stated the drain (South of 14) was closed as it was an illegal connection to Woodshire (no permit.) C. Sheriff Patrol- Previously discussed under IV. VI. Old Business A. Gordon River Maintenance Project (Stormwater Dept. Project) - Previously discussed under V. B. Al. New Business A. Summer Schedule - Previously discussed under V. A. VIII. Public Comments -None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 12:06 P.M. 4 1611 B9 Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisory Committee V'ca, Robert Jones, Chairman These minutes approved by the Comm as presented or amended. Next meeting is July 14, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 5 WO OD V (h W N C :O 01 A W J N + - + + + + + - 1 Ip 11 B 9 i3 O 0 m d M M A W N 00 V 0 M A W A0 + Omm�cc �D >_Dm miiG)�Ocmn�wmO�p�cz O�mDD�� m�CTc fn2 -m�Gi -i ymmCT�zN��ZZmMcmr�=� cmm m'{'4 m-i r-0 �p�D��D�zp�D�m �m�TTTT ccn�ip vNT =M �� Gm z�l—n< c��c�nm0 2 c m�mOO�� m-lm�< 47 O0DD N� ��m Omsg2 f zwm�G�zn -L� m��TT p m zczijczi� c»K� �ZZO�m - �i��Dm cQ'mDD00 ;-'a, xz0� -ID ZSmtnmZ Ez (,D Z TOMOmi mn< % %R2g -Zj:zm Z O� O �z m0 00 �� D�m �? 22 0m7Cm�mmm� C) r 0 m Cl) � DO ZMO>m--4 mX 44 6q EA fA EA 40 4A N69 EA 40 EA 696960 H H EA EA Vf Elf EA EA im EA 69 4A MEA EA 6969 EA 40 t 69(fl 6A O� A pA� p� 0Ap m p Oe (n W w W 0 0 cc �A -+ N • �� 8 Oj -4 V ;8808808;8'0 888 888888 0, o 888 N 6A M w (A H d! !n lov EA EA (A (-A EA (n EA EA EA 69 EA EA EA EA EA EA En ",60 d! 69 69 C91 M 0 EA 6A 6A 69 69 EA fA (A H 69 69 EA EA EA 69 EA 69 r vN888v8e 88 I 1 I 1 1 9 69 69 EA EA 6 G 4 I I I 1 0 C 9 di 6A 69 'EA 116 A LrI 8 T 8 %i O 3 1 I I 1 Lt EA EA 69 69 00 N V Q L N N A S coo 0 69 EA EA EA -1 d m OD + V N A S N > o m, v v d m d (u d m m d m d ru an d �. >> a o� 3 3 0 S c c � 5- 5 :T 0 n D D D D= 8 8 8 E 8 g g g g o o `c (n >r c> a 3 3 g m ° o m nSioSinSi ° ?o (o �' �'�3 3333333333 Nd d �'-�m(D mm 0 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 >> >> m c p p n v Q(ncntn D �� > >m.m v,v'o�_vv�_v_vv_pv_�3 ��om�°�.$"scxc �0��'03��3.33333,3333�0 G7 : n- ro CL � Z m m (3' �" i6 m 'm cn (B "m m. m. m. m. (D ° a � > > °' S ° n d g r v >> 3 ° O fD to A�7� A�0� A�0� T" T" � T A�0� �An A �n A�n A A �n A�n �An A�T � A A(h A(n A(� AU � A�n A to A A A A A A T" T � Y, � T" T � � � T" � T" T" T" � T' � � T T T" T" T' T" �_ p p p Y, Y, Y, T T p YS i.. 1 A NO I 1 1 �Y'' (17 89 CO� aj(7A t0 O CT W - V A 100 C I 0 I I I I I� 0 A (lo N I I 00 co O co O 69 EA EA EA 69 EA df 69 H d! EA EA EA " 6 69 69 EA fA (A H 69 69 EA EA EA 69 EA 69 r vN888v8e 88 I 1 I 1 1 9 69 69 EA EA 6 G 4 I I I 1 0 C 9 di 6A 69 'EA 116 A LrI 8 T 8 %i O 3 1 I I 1 Lt EA EA 69 69 00 N V Q L N N A S coo 0 69 EA EA EA -1 d m OD + V N A S N > o m, v v d m d (u d m m d m d ru an d �. >> a o� 3 3 0 S c c � 5- 5 :T 0 n D D D D= 8 8 8 E 8 g g g g o o `c (n >r c> a 3 3 g m ° o m nSioSinSi ° ?o (o �' �'�3 3333333333 Nd d �'-�m(D mm 0 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 >> >> m c p p n v Q(ncntn D �� > >m.m v,v'o�_vv�_v_vv_pv_�3 ��om�°�.$"scxc �0��'03��3.33333,3333�0 G7 : n- ro CL � Z m m (3' �" i6 m 'm cn (B "m m. m. m. m. (D ° a � > > °' S ° n d g r v >> 3 ° O fD to A�7� A�0� A�0� T" T" � T A�0� �An A �n A�n A A �n A�n �An A�T � A A(h A(n A(� AU � A�n A to A A A A A A T" T � Y, � T" T � � � T" � T" T" T" � T' � � T T T" T" T' T" �_ p p p Y, Y, Y, T T (O YS i.. 1 0-48 I W NO I 1 1 �Y'' 8N88 89 69 69 EA fA (A H 69 69 EA EA EA 69 EA 69 r vN888v8e 88 I 1 I 1 1 9 69 69 EA EA 6 G 4 I I I 1 0 C 9 di 6A 69 'EA 116 A LrI 8 T 8 %i O 3 1 I I 1 Lt EA EA 69 69 00 N V Q L N N A S coo 0 69 EA EA EA -1 d m OD + V N A S N > o m, v v d m d (u d m m d m d ru an d �. >> a o� 3 3 0 S c c � 5- 5 :T 0 n D D D D= 8 8 8 E 8 g g g g o o `c (n >r c> a 3 3 g m ° o m nSioSinSi ° ?o (o �' �'�3 3333333333 Nd d �'-�m(D mm 0 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 >> >> m c p p n v Q(ncntn D �� > >m.m v,v'o�_vv�_v_vv_pv_�3 ��om�°�.$"scxc �0��'03��3.33333,3333�0 G7 : n- ro CL � Z m m (3' �" i6 m 'm cn (B "m m. m. m. m. (D ° a � > > °' S ° n d g r v >> 3 ° O fD to A�7� A�0� A�0� T" T" � T A�0� �An A �n A�n A A �n A�n �An A�T � A A(h A(n A(� AU � A�n A to A A A A A A T" T � Y, � T" T � � � T" � T" T" T" � T' � � T T T" T" T' T" �_ p p p Y, Y, Y, T T « - 0+CV11fVJI�,j�C�pa(y -4 -4 V W V "11-881M S(D(DOUI �Yp' �T -N' 07 ^A� (T jj V CD Oo V' W V CO� aj(7A t0 O CT W - V A Ol ID ID c C �5•,* as an_ 3 ai �? O 0 0000000000m m �(D m o o? `P a) 23' cncncnuj c D5r�m m m (D 0 < m < m m TTIo 0° �o °.w� fO 0. 0'(0 @, �.L�. .� m � o� T� o T Co (D m m m m M oo m 0' (0 (n (o' 0 (b' (o' (o m ro (o � s � b � � a 3 O < T o _s o cj 2? Z Z Z 2? 2 2? y a .°�. =' � T a w w O (Tn ^ Cln T T -n T -n p � � 0 (I� � ' D N C A A U1 N V W O j' i C 0 U1 6� N W r 'y (D ° �c •c to -n w 7 (o $ ct rn O 8 � 7 m �j m 0 A _ _ _ O 'n Q J � ( - i�ii � zzz ? �O ?��o Z ?Z_ gd z ;Z 1; DN -- 4 --4 -J- -J-4CA w F fn J J 4A EA EA 69 EA EA Ef3 EA 69 (n 69 69 EA EA EA En En 69 69 EA EA 6A EA 69 69 EA L-A EA EA EA EA EA !- 69 EA 69 69 69 69 69 69 En EA T A (lo N -� A W I (n rn O A .A - N A O CA (n W C1 Q O (O CA O 1a W (n .A m N m N 0 W A_ O N W O W co M (n Cn V N O A O (n (fl (O (n N O (n (n W A 0 0 -' N (n O O N A 6) O O O (O :A 0) O A O --j O 00 O I I I I I I I I , I I 0 0 0) 0 1 I I O ,.�. P O A O O n m -n J W O 6 0 6 6 n 6 6 O (A O O O N O N O O 00 - N (n co O O 0 0 0 0( 0 0 N 0 0 0 O EA 6969 df HEA 69 69 EA 6A 6A 69 69 H 40 EA 696969 H EA Ei► 60 HHH696A. 696969 69 69 EA 69696969 696969 EA EA D NN V N](jVp�� Cj y J N C° PO (D .I w . n V J (/p�`- �'7!�"� 1 I O �wWV•cn ][ l 8 bj —" �o . . . . . . . N N!�8888888888s8 8N � O S SSWODO BOSS T O r- T z v p o � � c Forest Lakes MSTU 1611 9 9 Master Project List i 6.4..� 1 h.I Min jest I Description Estimated Schedule Status Estimated Cost Completed Cost Differential Notes 1 Overly an Woodshire Lane d Forest Lakes Blvd Combined old project nos. 11 and Overlay Forest Lakes Blvd. from Tennis Courts on Woodshire to Gardenia 16 1a Lane and from service entrance on Woodshire Lane to Pine Ridge Road (approx. 6500 Lf.) Completed $610,000 $145,000 $465,000 Project Completed. lb F-41 - Restore drainage in cul-de-sacs, regrods side yards throughout single family a Mar -Jul 2008 Co mpleted $1,050,000 $149,022 $900,978 Project Completed. 1 c F- 47- Overlay cul-de-sacs and Forest Lakes Blvd. from Gardenia Lane to Main Entrance Feb - Jul 008 Completed Project Completed. 2 F -42- Overlay Quail Forest Blvd. from Main Entrance to southern end and re re sto drainage Jan -May 2008 Completed $731,000 $88,586 $642,414 Project Corn j plated, 3 Quail Run Swale Restoration and Lake vemems Combined old project nos 4-13 3a F- 43- Regrade Swale Nos. 7 -11 and install culverts. Total regrade length Feb 2008 - May a Agnate 5 974 L.F. 2009 Completed P $147,000 $165,715 518,715 Project Completed. 3b F-45 - Regrade Swale Nos. 1 -6 and install culverts. Total regrade length Completed with approximately 8,415 L.F. Apr Aug 2009 Project Completed. 3c F-45- Regrade Swale Nos. 12 -17. Total regrade length approximately Final change 11,289 L.F. Apr - Aug 2009 order processing $333,000 $160,374 $172,626 Project Completed. underway 3d F -38- Construct engineered partitions in Lakes 8 and 10 Feb 2008 - Oct 2009 Deleted Proms Completed 4 F-47- Ove�ty For Lakes Drive and side streets from Forest Lakes . to Feb 2008 - Jan 2009 Completed $495,000 5314,731 5780,269 Project Completed. 5 F -50 - Woodshire Lane Improvements (Phase 1 ) Mar 2008 - Aug Completed with 009 3c Project Completed. 6 F-53 - Qwll Run Lake Shoreline Resteration and Stebilk "on May 2008 - Sep 2010 BCC Approved 4113/10 an $1,153,254.75 $1,153,254.75 $O Project Under Construction 7 F-64 - Replace culvert crossling Fairway No. 5 Jun - Oct 2006 Completed $145,235 $66,328 $78,907 Pmied C 8 F-55 - Forest Lakes Blvd Improvements from Quail Forest Blvd. to Woodshire Lane May -Sep 2009 Completed $180,000 $68,667 $111,333 Project Completed. 9 F-56 -South Woodshire Ditch knprovemsnts Jul 2009 -May 2010 Underway, $349,000 $314,312 $34,688 Project Under Construction 10 F- 57 - Drainage System Mapplp and Adjustments Jul 2009 - Feb 2010 aystments $50,000 $50,000 $O Project Completed. of I t F - 59 - Sidewalks, Lighting knprowntents, and Roadway Tree Aug 2009 - May Delayed penciling COST FACTORS BASED ON Plantings 2010 outoome of BVO S1,5WON OF COST - s 12 F-59 - Lighting Improvements Jan -May 2010 Combined with F- 58 13 F-60 - Cul de sat: improventente Jun 2009 - May Da*W pwdilnG 5150,000 tin96 OPINION OF COST IS 2010 oWCOmeo(BVO PENDING 14 F - 61 - Drainage system mapping Jul - Dec 2009 Combined with F- 57 15 F- 62 - Maintenance Drodaing of Lake 8 Jan - April 2010 Completed 5743,845 543,845 C 3/26110 16 F-63 - Property Line Wall along Woodshire Lane Oct 2009 - May Combined with F- Project Com pleted 17 1 F-64 - Roadway Tree Plantlngs TBD Combined with F- 58 ORIGINAL BOND ISSUE PROCEEDS $6,068,171 BOND- FUNDED PROJECT EXPENSES TO DATE $2.874,935 ESTIMATED BOND - FUNDED PROJECT EXPENSES $3,292.910 CURRENT BOND ISSUE FUNDS REMAINING $3,393,336 ESTIMATED BOND ISSUE FUNDS REMAINING AT $100.427 j b"Yc fofo" 999 Yo 222 cg8 s sss 80 S H O q~ �_� ~cc mamas �QQo i o L ��p �QQ ��AA ap2 2p ymm Cj« N N 9 _i' Y zz ltf� m D 0 sP wmm rpo cv Xy m N y N T H c 0 ~ � C., m n o ma M. A Am Si m C0i ma up e O e o o 0 0 I bG E eoo eoo 0000 eoo. b" $ 000 eoo .000 00 ZS � S eoo Eo0,3 DD iyRODx Y� S Y �Q52 !S _8 ..o 1103 E SH b" $ 000 eoo .000 00 s35S e000 IR 7�7RD DD iyRODx ioa oo �o$ e W ii xss s e o o 00 s35S �]$$�i8 o0 3go e IR 7�7RD DD iyRODx 0 D 0 D It ■ s oa HIM a HIM OGNN G 11 r OA n m nr O X O C 2 2 c p ~ , QQ S i D 0 o =1 a m 0 m m m 0 0 Z A A N M, GA D 2 2 m �-y1 XM m m�0 Am -, D �ii77 x X o 55 m z . A�F11 Ci O wOA Cl) r Y ,� 0001 � �OtD 000 000 O C ;s Y ILA i ea oo eoo +w C 0000 �l SnTJ �SOO 000 � • �j i ys� yiY. O •0Al� i • r w N w M � }I 9p o.00 'Y Hi !8 0 vob it a 00000 E �I2SH �I2So0 to 2S a a y'f• �of yi� 8O ] • O a� ] M O +OI r D A O yaO � b e o e I 0 0 0 025 M e o o 00 s� N e o • a w Y� S Y yEw 7R y0b� 0 0 Xxx y0� q0 7R 7R W E SH 0000 w e iH o eoo i 00000 E �I2SH �I2So0 to 2S a a y'f• �of yi� 8O ] • O a� ] M O +OI r D A O yaO � b e o e I 0 0 0 025 M e o o 00 O • o O N e o • a N Y� S �wiNY yEw 7R y0b� 0 0 Xxx y0� q0 7R 7R 0000 E SH 8H o eoo S e 8� o �o� X t� ssii yy yII N � V �J yYy rl�J N y� t `D Y D N` y II Oi X x x X 0000 8 Ea �? Scg i e 00000 � eoo e000 Oo O O 00000 E �I2SH �I2So0 to 2S a a y'f• �of yi� 8O ] • O a� ] M O +OI r D A O yaO � b e o e I 0 0 0 025 e o o 00 O • o O e o • a yEw 7R y0b� 0 0 Xxx y0� q0 7R 7R y� QH D iRD� HII X .Oj m )D � x 00002S S 82525 8� o �o� X eo S 25 ssii yy yII N � V �J yYy rl�J N y� t `D Y D N` y II Oi X x x X :b B 9 1 g go 9 999 go goo 9 g mg ~ 1 O py A O O T 9 (j 3.10 A A r a t 2 0 T A A 1 A ni ITT N DA O 0 ;� COC OO mDT pm, m0 9 2 $0=O a� 0 m T P O 2 y d A D < m T A O T> mT N O 0 1 D m N T ¢ Tf7 zz 0 N <~ - --24 ti NT 3 SC82 0 c) 0 m > > a m R w N N m m f < r 6� Nq p § V ♦ rr�� QQ�� O �W�++ O QO 8� S'S o oot3 0� 0250 aFi o tS V L > A e eNAmm� -88 '-s E A O O o O O N A8 O O O W O $+ n i N x VJVJ q�W pp 280 O O O+ N O♦ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y N O i yyi�O -g�gN g. S g +yS� O O O O O O O 0-§-§ O• .1901 00§ O O e 5 +5�N r� �75 250 000 02525 251 075 00025 rr� is 0025 000 000 oS 000 O25o25 }� s ANN OI+ as pp N W Sao 0 0 M OA 1pJ W O l 090 O O O 1 w w rr O gigy� 5N� VQ NQ r;+ NQ yN�NQ 5O2 E 25 ffi 75 075 0 2i 75 O � 2f .1 o 25 O 25 iS ; ¢ If off Oa � dN 0Q'8Q Big $ o � . O� eeiSa m e eoo 0 0 000 000 00 000 000 Q� NQOQ ff1�j $ N�i gQN �Wi $W� ga V�jj gNQ gO gN + O 7525 025 02S 2S 0925 06 02525 0006 Jill y 1 T R 75 0 000 a25 0 A° 8 x ba iii oo g� off ao K7WR 70R a a�K KK �� fill o 08 §1 $A x Sfd $ X075 8H ,4 8 ai yt a 5; fox M °x R c lop I n G 5 O 1' H a a N Sig NUZ ; 1611 Bq n qO_ C n E $ ci WO i:r s y4$g� sag 1611 Bq n qO_ C n Total: $10,415.001 1611 99 QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC. Forest Lakes Rock Excavation Time as of 712/10 ST HOURLY RATE HOURS TOTAL Personnel Project Manager $90.00 $0.00 Superintendent $70.00 $0.00 Foreman $65.00 $0.00 Mechanic & Equipment Operator $60.00 $0.00 Laborer $45.00 84 $3,780.00 ** 2 hours on 7/2, starting breaking rock with Administrative $50.00 $0.00 hoeram Equipment (with Operator) Excavator - 20 metric tons $115.00 28 $3,220.00 ** 2 hours on 7/2, starting breaking rock with Excavator - 7.5 metric tons $85.00 $0.00 hoeram Backhoe $75.00 $0.00 Wheel Loader - 2.5 cubic yard $85.00 $0.00 Wheel Loader - 4 cubic yard $105.00 28 $2,940.00 ** 2 hours on 7/2, starting breaking rock with Bull Dozer - 8 metric tons $95.00 $0.00 hoeram Dump Truck - tandem axle $75.00 $0.00 Dump Truck - tri- axle $80.00 $0.00 Roll -Off Container Truck $85.00 $0.00 Lowboy Trailer $95.00 5 $475.001 Mobilize hoeram and excavator Water Truck or Trailer $95.00 $0.00 Motor Grader $110.00 $0.00 Vibratory Roller $95.00 $0.00 Asphalt Roller $95.00 $0.00 Asphalt Paver $215.00 $0.00 Telehandler $95.00 $0.00 Tap Machine - small (3/4" - 3 ") each tap $350.00 $0.00 Tap Machine - large (4" - 12 ") each tap $750.00 $0.00 Equipment (without Operator) Truck with Hand Tools $45.00 $0.00 Jobsite Trailer (rate per day) $120.00 $0.00 Roll -Off Container - 20 cubic yard $60.00 $0.00 Small Equipment (without Operator) Air Compressor with Hammer $30.00 $0.00 Trench Box 16'x 10' (rate per day) $210.00 $0.00 Steel (Road) Plates (rate per day) $200.00 $0.00 3" Trash Pump $25.00 $0.00 2" Submersible Pump $25.00 $0.00 Concrete Saw (rate per fl:) $3.00 $0.00 Cut Of Saw (rate per day) $85.00 $0.00 Light Set (rate per day) $200.00 $0.00 Other MOT $750.00 $0.00 Total: $10,415.001 1611 89 STATUS REPORT To: Forest Lakes MSTU Committee cc: Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM Jim Carr, ABB Reid Fellows, TR Transportation, Inc. Chris Tilman, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. From: Scott Windham Date: July 7, 2010 RE: Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project F -58 Sidewalk Project Status Report 2 Committee and team: The following is a brief status report for the Forest Lakes Sidewalk, Lighting and Street Tree project: Conceptual Design (Windham Studio): • Complete: Primary Entrance Median and Monument Signs Concept Plans and Plant Palette 60% Landscape Construction Plans (Windham Studio and Abney and Associates): • Complete: 60% Sidewalk Layout/Dimension, Planting and Irrigation Plans • Complete: 60% Sidewalk Planting and Irrigation Opinion of Probable Cost • Next Step: • WSI and Abney to begin 100% Planting and Irrigation Plans for sidewalk for staff review. • WSI and Abney to begin 30% and 60% Planting and Irrigation Plans for the entrance medians and monument signs following committee feedback on concepts. Once review with staff, then push on to 100% to catch up to the sidewalk plans. • WSI will coordinate construction drawings into 3 sets of plans for individual bidding as follows: • Woodshire Lane Sidewalk Layout Plans (Includes sleeves) Note: Construction of this section of the sidewalk has already been awarded to be completed with the Woodshire drainage project. • Sidewalk Construction Plans (Layout, Civil and Lighting) • Sidewalk Planting and Irrigation Plans Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott@windhamstudio.com www.windhimstudio.com 60% Sidewalk Construction Plans (ABB): 1611 • Complete: 60% Sidewalk Civil Engineering Plans • Complete: 60% Sidewalk Civil Construction Opinion of Probable Cost • Next Step: ■ ABB to begin 100% Sidewalk Civil Engineering Plans for staff review. 60% Sidewalk Lighting Construction Plans (TR Transportation): • Complete: 60% Sidewalk Lighting Plans • Complete: 60% Sidewalk Lighting Opinion of Probable Cost • Next Step: ■ TR to begin 100% Sidewalk Lighting Plans fore staff review. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000 -1516 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott@windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com 161 1 69 FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK, F -58 60% OPINION OF PROBABLE COST SUMMARY Prepared by: Windham Studio, Inc. 7/7/10 WSI AND ABNEY: LANDSCAPE / IRRIGATION CONSTRUCTION Budget Item Estimate Planting Includes 10% Contingency) $198,904.50 Irrigation Includes 10% Contingency) $194,000.00 Green Screen Includes chain link fence demo $140,500.00 Site Furnishings $13,660.00 SUB TOTAL: $547,064.50 ABB: SIDEWALK / STRIPING / DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION Budget Item Estimate Sidewalk, striping, drainage $281,993.10 20% Contingency $56,398.62 SUB TOTAL: $338,39112 TR TRANSPORTATION: LIGHTING CONSTRUCTION Budget Item Estimate Lighting Supply and Install $579,900.00 15% Contingency $86,985.00 SUB TOTAL: $666,885.00 GRAND TOTAL: $1,552,341.22 'See the attached individual Opinions of Cost for each subconsultant for greater detail. 161'1 89 STATUS REPORT To: Forest Lakes MSTU Committee cc: Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM Jim Carr, ABB Chris Tilman, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. From: Scott Windham Date: July 7, 2010 RE: Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project F -60 Culdesac Project Status Report 1 Committee and team: The following is a brief status report for the Forest Lakes Culdesac refurbishment project: Conceptual Design (Windham Studio): • Complete: Typical Culdesac Plans • Plans include trash and recycle cart storage area layouts to ease access for Waste Management trucks • Plans include conceptual planting scenarios for consideration by culdesac residents. • Next Step: • WSI to begin 30% and 60% culdesac typical layout plans for cart storage and tree planting plans for staff review • ABB to prepare 30% and 60% supplemental details for curbing and cart storage pads for staff review. • WSI and ABB to prepare 60% opinions of cost. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000 -1516 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott @windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com 1611 99 Gordon Rive Extension Maintenance Project Project Cost Estimate July 6, 2010 F"t Una Total Easement Acquisition Royal Poinciana 1 LS $46,000.00 $46,000.00 O& E Reports (RP & CCN) 2 EA $500.00 $1,000.00 Engineering 1 LS $96,300.00 $96,300.00 Construction Mobilization /Demobilization 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 Construction Surveys 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Tree and Vegetation Removal 3 AC $3,500.00 $10,500.00 Excavation and Hauling 19,500 CY $22.00 $429,000.00 Slope Stabilization 4500 LF $34.00 $153,000.00 Misc Sodding 26400 SF $0.40 $10,560.00 Silt Fences /Sedimentation Controls 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Analytical Testing 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Subtotal $821,360.00 Contingency (20 %) $164,272.00 GRAND TOTAL $985,632.00 Z i Ll - 13 4 -N Aa 40 MALCOL'M PIRNIF INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS April 19, 2010 Mrs. Margaret Bishop, P.E. Senior Project Manager Collier County Stormwater Management Section 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 Re: Gordon River Extension Maintenance Project Design and CMA Services Dear Mrs. Bishop: 161'S gg Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 4315 Metro Pkwy, Suite 520 Fort Myers, FL 33916 Phone(239)332 -1300 Fax(239)332 -1789 www.pirnie.com Malcolm Pirnie is pleased to provide the Collier County Stormwater Management Department (County) this scope of work for Design and Construction Management Assistance (CMA) Services for the Gordon River Extension Maintenance Project. The purpose of this project is to prepare the engineering drawings and specifications in accordance with the design approved under the Nationwide 41 General Permit by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and to assist the County during bidding and construction activities. This scope assumes that the County will use their own front end documents for the Contract Documents, and the County will provide a signed and sealed survey of the project and the associated electronic files in AutoCAD format. SCOPE OF SERVICES The services for this project include the following tasks: TASK 050 — Project Management This task includes the work effort required for project planning, administration, and coordination. Specific activities included in this task include the following: • Managing and coordinating project activities and field personnel to control costs and maintain the project schedule. • Maintaining project files and data systems. • Preparing monthly invoices. • Providing internal quality control. • Internal and external project - related communications. 1611 gg Mrs. Margaret Bishop, P.E. Gordon River Extension Maintenance Project Design and CMA Services April 19, 2010 Page 2 of 5 TASK 100 — Contract Document Preparation The construction plans will be prepared in electronic format on 24 -inch by 36 -inch drawings using AutoCAD 2009. The technical specifications will be prepared in Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) format using Word. The Information for Bidders, Form of Contract, and General and Supplementary Conditions will be in accordance with the County's standard construction bid documents. The Design will consist of 60 Percent, 90 Percent, and 100 Percent Submittals. TASK 110 — 60 Percent Design Based on the design approved under the Nationwide 41 General Permit by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Malcolm Pirnie will prepare the 60 percent design submittal composed of contract drawings and technical specifications. The 60 percent design submittal will include the following: • Two (2) copies of 60 percent design drawings and specifications. • An Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ( EOPCC) • A project schedule through construction completion • Malcolm Pirnie will attend a 60 percent design review meeting to discuss the contents and concepts of the 60 percent design submittal and receive the County's comments. Malcolm Pirnie staff will prepare the meeting minutes for distribution to all meeting attendees. TASK 120 - 90- Percent Design Based upon comments received from the County staff on the 60- percent design review, Malcolm Pirnie will prepare the 90 percent design submittal, including contract drawings and technical specifications. The 90 percent design submittal will include the following: • Two (2) copies of 90 percent design drawings and specifications. • An updated EOPCC • An updated project schedule through construction completion • Malcolm Pirnie will attend a 90 percent design review meeting to discuss the contents and concepts of the 90 percent design submittal and receive the County's comments. Malcolm Pirnie staff will prepare the meeting minutes for distribution to all meeting attendees. TASK 130 -100- Percent Design Based upon comments received from the County staff on the 90- percent design review, Malcolm Pirnie will prepare the 100 - percent design submittal, including contract drawings and technical specifications. The 100 percent design submittal will include the following: • Two (2) copies of 100 percent design drawings and specifications • An updated (final) EOPCC • An updated project schedule through construction completion 1611 Btl Mrs. Margaret Bishop, P.E. Gordon River Extension Maintenance Project Design and CMA Services April 19, 2010 Page 3 of 5 Deliverables Malcolm Pirnie will provide the final bid documents to the County, which will consist of four (4) copies of the 100% specifications and drawings, signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer registered in Florida. Malcolm Pirnie will also provide a final cost estimate as part of the bid submittal. A CD -ROM with the AutoCAD drawing files and Microsoft Word specification files will also be submitted to the County. TASK 200 - Bidding Assistance During the bid phase, Malcolm Pirnie will assist the County by providing the following services: • Attending and participating in one (1) pre -bid meeting • Recording inquiries from prospective bidders • Preparing the text for up to two (2) addenda for the County to submit to contract document holders • Reviewing bids and making a recommendation of award to the County. TASK 300 — Meetings • Preparing for and attending up to four (4) meetings as requested by the County to review the project status. • Preparing for and attending up to two (2) coordination meetings with the Royal Poinciana Golf Course staff to review project issues. TASK 400 —Construction Monitoring Provide full -time construction monitoring during the course of the construction work for up to twenty -five (25) working days. For the purposes of this scope, full time is considered to be eight (8) hours per working day. TASK 410 - Pay Request Reviews After receipt of each application for payment from the Contractor, Malcolm Pirnie will review each application and provide written recommendation to the County regarding payment to the Contractor. Under this scope, Malcolm Pirnie will review up to two (2) pay requests. TASK 500 — Project Closeout Malcolm Pirnie will prepare final record drawings from the original disk file based on Contractor supplied as -built drawings and information, approved shop drawings, on -site inspections and other knowledge regarding field changes, modifications, etc. made during the construction phase of the project. Malcolm Pirnie will submit the record drawings and construction certification documents to the appropriate regulatory agencies and provide the County with the disk (or CD) file. 1611 B9 Mrs. Margaret Bishop, P.E. Gordon River Extension Maintenance Project Design and CMA Services April 19, 2010 Page 4 of 5 ADDITIONAL SERVICES In addition to performing the work identified in this scope, Malcolm Pirnie will perform Additional Services as requested by the County. The need for such services may arise from the completion of the tasks identified above and cannot be fully defined at this time. However, it may be determined at some future date that these additional services are necessary to thoroughly complete or implement the Work. Examples of Additional Services may include technical evaluations, preparation of reports, or other activities deemed necessary by the County. It should be noted that the fees for these services have not been included in this scope. Such tasks and their level of effort, associated budgets and schedules will be described in detail in work authorizations to be issued at the time such tasks are requested by the County. SCHEDULE Malcolm Pirnie anticipates providing the professional services outlined above for a period of up to one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days after receipt of Notice to Proceed, budget permitting. This schedule accounts for the activities included in this scope and time for County bidding processes. COMPENSATION Malcolm Pirnie will provide this scope of services under the terms and conditions of Contract 09 -5262 County Wide Engineering Services for a lump sum fee of $96,300. The estimated fees for each task are as follows: 050 Project Management $5,450 100 Contract Document Preparation $39,900 200 Bidding Assistance $6,470 300 Meetings $9,640 400 Construction Monitoring $30,000 500 Project Closeout $4,840 TOTAL LUMP -SUM FEE $96,300 16I 1 B9 Mrs. Margaret Bishop, P.E. Gordon River Extension Maintenance Project Design and CMA Services April 19, 2010 Page 5 of 5 The project budget is based on the scope of work as provided and is subject to cost adjustment resulting from any change in the scope or schedule of work. Malcolm Pirnie appreciates this opportunity to provide this requested scope of services, and will enjoy working with the County on this important project. If you have any questions regarding this scope or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Christopher Tilman, P.E. or me at (239) 332 -1300. Sincerely, MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC. 0, '�L Robert H. French, P.E. Senior Associate RECEIVED AUG 16 2010 Board of County Commissioners DR!! 0 .. Halas Henning Coyle _ Coletta GOLDEN GATE M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 July 12, 2010 AGENDA 1. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance 111. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes- May 11, 2010 V. Transportation Operations Report A. Budget B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Transportation Maintenance Report — Hannula VII. Landscape Architects Report - JRL VIII. Landscape Architects Report — McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado IX. Old Business X. New Business A. FPL Vertical Light Poles XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment The next meeting is scheduled for August 10, 2010 at 4:0bij5.%: At Golden Gate Community Center - Naples, FL Date: Item #: 1 C ^r)ies to: �V/ RECEIVED AUG 16 2010 Board of County Commissioners 16I '8-10 a Fiala Halas Henning .= ez Coyle Coletta GOLDEN UGATE W.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Angus AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance Ill. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - May 11, 2010 and July 12, 2010 V. Transportation Operations Report A. Budget B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Transportation Maintenance Report — Hannula VII. Landscape Architects Report - JRL VIII. Landscape Architects Report— McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado IX. Old Business A. Water Symposium X. New Business XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment , hm. § n .:. M is s Scheduled,, '1'c'r P+.e',-.§ r N)10 z 4,00 ? n, �f� p lt �pc• Vim.. : a0. A Date: 1 Item # C^-pies to: F.,EcENED AUG 16 2010 E3oard of County commissioners H 1611y Halal _ Henning � _ Coyle Coiatta GOLDEN GATE M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 May 11, 2010 MINUTES I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 4:03 p.m. by Richard Sims, Chairman. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Peggy Harris, Barbara Segura, Richard Sims, Pat Spencer, Michael McElroy (Excused) County: Darryl Richard — MSTU Project Manager, Pamela Lulich, Landscape Operations Manager, Caroline Soto — Management Budget Analyst, Tessie Sillery - MSTU Operations Coordinator, Rhonda Cummings — Contract Specialist, Brenda Brilhart — Purchasing Agent Others: Michael McGee — McGee & Associates, James Stephens - Hannula, John Ribes — JRL , Richard Tindell — JRL, Sue Flynn — Juristaff, Michael Ramsey — Water Symposium, Dennis Vasey — Collier Soil & Water Conservation District III. Approval of Agenda Add: V. C. JRL Proposal IX. B. Summer Meeting Schedule IX. C. Memorial Day Richard Sims moved to approve the Agenda as amended Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes —March 23, 2010 Richard Sims moved to approve the March 23, 2010 Minutes as subm' Corral: Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Date: Item #: C ^pies to: 16 1 HJ V. Transportation Operations Report A. Budget — Caroline Soto distributed and reviewed the Golden Gate Beautification MSTU Fund 153 Report dated May 11, 2010. (See attached) • Available Investment Interest - $3.907.77 • Available Operating Expense - $64,740.77 • Available Improvements General - $1,354,320.00 • Purchase Orders to be Paid - $130,500.99 • Purchase Orders Paid - $165,316.74 It was noted the Carry Forward Account had not been adjusted. B. Project Manager Report Darryl Richard reported: o Staff received a quote for $800 for projection equipment quotes requested by Committee and will be presented at next meeting. The Staff reported on Coronado Parkway and Hunter sidewalks as follow: • Total projected costs are $1,167,366.37 • Pathways has committed to provide $100,000 toward funding • Road and Bridge has committed to provide $100,000 toward funding. • Additional funds may be required from the GG MSTU. • Bids will be provided for sidewalks Darryl Richard reported Pathways funding would not be available until October 1, 2010 which could delay project. Pathways' interests are in upgrade existing paths with asphalt to meet ADA Standards. Drawings are not available and Project is in 90% Review. Discussion ensued on the installation of curbing, culverts and sidewalks and costs and how and when to coordinate installations. Brenda Brilhart stated Staff could move forward and put the bid out if they keep in mind vendors need to hold their pricing for 3 months. Prior to submitting to BCC the MSTU must have funding available. Mike McGee clarified Pathway's plan is to provide funding to bring the 5' asphalt pathway on Hunter and pathways on both sides of Coronado up to ADA Standards. Darryl Richard recommended combining both the culvert work and curbing work to same company for better pricing. Richard Sims noted the GG MSTU Beautification Master Plan does not have storm water in it. 0) 16 Barbara Segura suggested Staff wait until after hurricane season and start the project in November. It was noted "Lane Closure Fees" do not apply on Hunter Boulevard and Coronado Parkway. C. JRL Proposal Darryl Richard asked the Committee to comment on the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the past service received from JRL. Staff distributed a JRL Proposal dated April 1. (See attached) Richard Sims expressed dissatisfaction with the timely illegal process. The process took one year of Committee time. He continued stating the JRL representative could not answer questions from the Committee which was also time consuming. The Committee all agreed with Richard Sims remarks. Rhonda Cummings responded the BVO Process has not been labeled an "Illegal Process." She stated the County is currently waiting for a response from the Attorney General on that issue. Darryl Richard stated JRL had not completed the one year contract awarded. All vendor services chosen by the BVO Process have been cancelled. Staff asked the Committee how to proceed with replacing or retaining JRL, Landscape Architect Firm. Discussion was made on how the Committee would like to proceed. The Committee does not want either the Rotation or the BVO Process to choose a vendor. The Committee prefers to interview vendors and review vendor bids themselves. Barbara Segura moved to go back to Committee Selection where the Committee volunteers their time to choose the vendor of their choice. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. John Ribes, JRL responded he recognizes the Committee did not have a choice due to the BVO Process. He addressed the dissatisfaction on quality assurance and mentioned this is the first time he had heard this compliant from the County. He stated the need for willingness to work together or start over again. Richard Sims asked JRL if they would be interested in the job. John Ribes responded he would think about it. He reiterated a working relationship was important. Richard Sims recommended the Committee retain JRL for work as proposed. 3 161 •.1 Richard Sims moved to accept proposal from JRL for the balance of the year. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 3 -1. Barbara Segura opposed Pam Lulich stated the GG MSTU is in a maintenance mode and recommended the MSTU always have a landscape architect consultant. VI. Transportation Maintenance Report - Hannula Richard Sims announced American Flags will be placed in the ground on the medians between May 28 — 30 and asked Hannula to mow around them. James Stephens reported • Plantings on Sunshine are near completion. • Crown of Thorns will be planted on 951 • Mowing scheduled for today on Sunshine and Tropicana. • Pruning and trimming on Tropicana. James Stephens expressed concern on over trimming the medians too much and stated too much will deteriorate plants. Mike McGee agreed and recommended the plants be pruned when plants are outside of sight line. VII. Landscape Architects Report — McGee & Associates Mike McGee reported the firm is waiting on the 90% Staff review. The Staff will distribute plans once the plans are 100% completed. VIII.Old Business — None. IX. New Business A. FPL Vertical Light Poles — None B. Summer Meeting Schedule Darryl Richard requested the Committee not meet in June stating he had a schedule conflict. Richard Sims moved to skip the June meeting and hold the following meeting in July. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Richard Sims moved to move the July meeting to July 12, 2010. Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. C. Memorial Day — Discussed in VI. X. Public Comments 1611' Michael Ramsey, Water Symposium a non - profit organization, distributed "2010 Water Symposium of Florida Inc Project Overview" and gave a short presentation on Project Greenscape. (See attached) Michael Ramsey introduced Dennis Vasey, Collier Soil & Water Conservation District and he endorsed and completed the presentation. They reassured the Committee they design with Florida friendly plants and comply with County codes. They offered a total concept design for any 500' area. The Committee can choose the site. The Water Symposium stated they will provide the design and plants at no charge. (Water Symposium is working with Grant Funds.) The GG MSTU would be responsible for installation and maintenance. Discussion was made on plants, irrigation and if the Committee wanted to accept the offer and what location to use for demonstration. Barbara Segura moved to give the area by sign on median 21 at Golden Gate and Santa Barbara. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 6:10 P.M. Golden Gate MSTU A ' ory Committee Richa d Sims, Chiirmad-_- These minutes approved by the Committee/Board on as presented or amended JC The next meeting is scheduled for July 12, 2010 4:00 PM at Golden Gate Community Center - Napies, FL 5 r • A; Y a�. GOLDEN M.S.T.U,ADVISORY COMM E 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 tj SUMMARY OF MINUTES AND MOTIONS III. Approval of Agenda Add: V. C. JRL Proposal IX. B. Summer Meeting Schedule IX. C. Memorial Day Richard Sims moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — March 23, 2010 Richard Sims moved to approve the March 23, 2010 Minutes as submitted. Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. V. Transportation Operations Report C. JRL Proposal Barbara Segura moved to go back to Committee Selection where the Committee volunteers their time to choose the vendor of their choice. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Richard Sims recommended the Committee retain JRL for work as proposed. Richard Sims moved to accept proposal from JRL for the balance of the year. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 3 -1. Barbara Segura opposed. 1 16'I IX. New Business B. Summer Meeting Schedule Richard Sims moved to skip the June meeting and hold the following meeting in July. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Richard Sims moved to move the July meeting to July 12, 2010. Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. X. Public Comments Michael Ramsey, Water Symposium a non - profit organization gave a short presentation on Project Greenscape. Barbara Segura moved to give the area by sign on median 21 at Golden Gate and Santa Barbara. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. 0 H to Z O Q U O LL e+l G j N Z W LL Q Z W J O 0 O SD 1On 0000 170010100000f ON n1n I 1D 001D I 1D a01D 1D 10 O O ONA 901D O n0 MOOM 1-a0 NN 01[11000 q0 n 1n On 0G10M wmv OOMN WO, dO r act v nO n fl- Ol Na0 a0 Ol m O/ t0 N 0 1D 00 Nf lO aV f0 m r aD 7 V r LL Lr CL c O QV) � n- G 66 nN tt nNO OY1 m- ";N 107 O N 1 m m o m iv N m Efi Jq A A A 60 fA fA w fA w w (n fH vi fA 09 fA b9 0 (A f04 w w w w(a w (ato w w w w w (a(a w to w (a(a w O 0 d 60 0 # g " O O1DNQ O 0 O C11: 0) 17 OOO n0 �00bCD n O10 0010 t7 rl t p a Z c0010A f01f� b m1, a p 0 0 0 N W) 1 AM1n 1n 10 f0 1/00p1 O O O M O M N O N N m N E _ N N fD N m O M O I� V O r (D En O O m N f- co N - O - co r LL Lr CL c O QV) � n- G 66 nN tt nNO OY1 m- ";N 107 O N 1 m m o m iv N m Efi Jq A A A 60 fA fA w fA w w (n fH vi fA 09 fA b9 0 (A f04 O O O 10 O 0 d 60 0 # g " O O1DNQ O 0 O C11: 0) 17 OOO n0 �00bCD n O10 0010 t7 rl t p a Z c0010A f01f� b m1, a p 0 0 0 N W) 1 AM1n 1n 10 f0 1/00p1 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O m m 0 w w w (A wl(alto H to w "CA ra N N ) l0 n n N 0 O(D<nN a0 N O N n N 0 O h r vvm r 1D v 0 P] N1 w w to w w wplw w w w wlM ®w w w to (a tol (alto w w w O J F' m W E� vm �1yca�Z QtgfAU1QQ O°C -x 0. a N C O O a QO a 7 7 yc CL a- W1L LL 1L W -1 W Q C J a L C _3 _3 _3U. 5J ON (D 0) TN N n SD O0 N 00 01 Oa0 0OO< W V O(p NN fnNa)W U� V V SOD d.n-V VUU�on W NOOOV1bD 107N O0000aOO °oo�� °08080000000 In Lo n c101On.n n$1°nghko 1°n1°0 W) 40 v v v Y v v v O V a V< f< v v v v 4 C W W C cc 3 7 LY C 1N a Oy ON C U W m V a as o0p1 c 0'i 0 0 wo►- (n Ax 'E � W N N Vgg O amp i- EW c ab ab atf O C E a J c C C .D- 7 J T c O Ci C C 7 ti LL li l° 1i LL � Y � a in rn r°n O O 0 0 0 1 D O O N O O ac, O O 0 0 10 O O N O O n 0 0 0 0 0 0 f 0 0 0 N O O W O O O O G N W O O W b OOl000001D.- f 0 1 D act N Ilk V 0 0 0 0 1 O f N call 1h N� 1v v (a w w w w w to to w w &9 us 40 v& ul` to 01Lqn �ON� N O MO 1 000 N na(60 O O co lA omao olnn n o O 17 a0 W O Nact b It v) O N 0 10 co s w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w O V m N O O O V V O M O m N I- O M N 10 m M f O m V V O m O fA H E f d f F � f f to U H f f H( C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0001f000aaa0000a0 C't 0 0 0O O O pO O SSO p h O m 1D O cor In N -/7 e-w NN C. NN f0 to oil wwwwwwwwtowwwww 8 i Y r r J U W wFF �� w m�,= �Q� 1nW a z C F W J� a w LL � Z j J g z z O W N� z Q a U F b: �z�J�QI -c�0>>z W wWl-(n c4W WMIM"_z OZW ? aUF z W W zZ VOOO�� WU U. WFUop z� f-FW -0— Lu -6X,U) =) aai0 U 090"�r KLaaKo6 c�FM?► -i cW7} �zpLL'w =�W Z.7 zz0 w QQDWI- NIxwirccNZ K�vapW VIx a as LU >tvi�ma(3LU (a ��0y. LU Wzf/)MOO°IW W W Wt/IUKLL��O[2�z 2y J�Sa'Q~Q 01(a V) K aQS� W W ZZ �z it 'OZ zLLKa W HV ZUp zQw f.W wOrLz Q2 OOZ W W U01LL— ..??WWF- 1 --UUZ� WW- 0&WKWMg�a�WOWOO9cS9I� -ww Irc - �N1+f 0 p(O Aa0010�N P'! fama0010 NM f tlt0 Aa0p OWN O W ((pp Aa001 ope-N N NNNNNN NN NM API a0� t7 a0 Mt7 V! f f f O O O 10 O 0 d 60 0 oao g " n O O 01 v0.. f0. b m /0 0 0) S N m m f wwwwwwwto w(a O J F' m W E� vm �1yca�Z QtgfAU1QQ O°C -x 0. a N C O O a QO a 7 7 yc CL a- W1L LL 1L W -1 W Q C J a L C _3 _3 _3U. 5J ON (D 0) TN N n SD O0 N 00 01 Oa0 0OO< W V O(p NN fnNa)W U� V V SOD d.n-V VUU�on W NOOOV1bD 107N O0000aOO °oo�� °08080000000 In Lo n c101On.n n$1°nghko 1°n1°0 W) 40 v v v Y v v v O V a V< f< v v v v 4 C W W C cc 3 7 LY C 1N a Oy ON C U W m V a as o0p1 c 0'i 0 0 wo►- (n Ax 'E � W N N Vgg O amp i- EW c ab ab atf O C E a J c C C .D- 7 J T c O Ci C C 7 ti LL li l° 1i LL � Y � a in rn r°n O O 0 0 0 1 D O O N O O ac, O O 0 0 10 O O N O O n 0 0 0 0 0 0 f 0 0 0 N O O W O O O O G N W O O W b OOl000001D.- f 0 1 D act N Ilk V 0 0 0 0 1 O f N call 1h N� 1v v (a w w w w w to to w w &9 us 40 v& ul` to 01Lqn �ON� N O MO 1 000 N na(60 O O co lA omao olnn n o O 17 a0 W O Nact b It v) O N 0 10 co s w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w O V m N O O O V V O M O m N I- O M N 10 m M f O m V V O m O fA H E f d f F � f f to U H f f H( C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0001f000aaa0000a0 C't 0 0 0O O O pO O SSO p h O m 1D O cor In N -/7 e-w NN C. NN f0 to oil wwwwwwwwtowwwww 8 i Y r r J U W wFF �� w m�,= �Q� 1nW a z C F W J� a w LL � Z j J g z z O W N� z Q a U F b: �z�J�QI -c�0>>z W wWl-(n c4W WMIM"_z OZW ? aUF z W W zZ VOOO�� WU U. WFUop z� f-FW -0— Lu -6X,U) =) aai0 U 090"�r KLaaKo6 c�FM?► -i cW7} �zpLL'w =�W Z.7 zz0 w QQDWI- NIxwirccNZ K�vapW VIx a as LU >tvi�ma(3LU (a ��0y. LU Wzf/)MOO°IW W W Wt/IUKLL��O[2�z 2y J�Sa'Q~Q 01(a V) K aQS� W W ZZ �z it 'OZ zLLKa W HV ZUp zQw f.W wOrLz Q2 OOZ W W U01LL— ..??WWF- 1 --UUZ� WW- 0&WKWMg�a�WOWOO9cS9I� -ww Irc - �N1+f 0 p(O Aa0010�N P'! fama0010 NM f tlt0 Aa0p OWN O W ((pp Aa001 ope-N N NNNNNN NN NM API a0� t7 a0 Mt7 V! f f f N O M O O N r 0 C � m LL W O 0 161 1. O O � N t0 r M O► t` W O N O O O O O W M 0 O w to 0 O 0 M M O O O O O O O N N 01 O O t0 A O N r O t0 P tD t10 O O O N ad M t` t0 m W CV a A tV O r O 6 M b N 6 N O O � . O r O r M V f` O f` t• N M tb M W N t0 to M O N r H V to OD N V' O r t0 m N V► V► N M M M M V► N M N N M M N M N M M V! V► V► e� V! ?O 4 • M O 7 _O 7 O C 7 7 O M C7 O O O N N th co O to 4 CO m N V) V! V! V3, N O N M O na N N N n Y C < CL n N N of C CA dt V! Vi Vf Vi V) V) to (0 V) V! V), G& Vi M co CnD O O O S O O LL O ci CO to 01 n eO� O LO tD t0 V N n Q t0 to 0 A A tp C cm r t0 Vs Vi to Vs Vs d) M Vi to V) V! to V) V! V! V! V3 Vi V! V! V! O t� LOO N W U. M co C7 N a0 'i tO CV 'Ott � a0 CO N A • LL t0 Y Pf d1 V! V! di V! V! Vl V! V) V! di V! V) V) V! V! V) V! V) V) VP h O r W O q O m t0O On M 0 to 4m m Go to fA N O t7D M A O_ N M t0 V) V) V► V) V), V) CR V). V) V! V) V3, V) V! Vf Vi V! V) V! t9 V! N to O O N h r tt. O o to 6 try e- v LO M n 0 ao r to N O O to m W N n N a to t9 V) t9 m V! V) to V) m V! to Vl V! m m V3 V) V) Vl m h ° o w n o o 0 o o C, n o U� n o o i. n > t0 O to r N M O O Z O (0 M tto+� b! V) V! V! 0% V! di• Vf V) di di Vl V! V! Vl Vf fA V! V! V! di N Y 1� m 00 CV _N P. n 01) f0 M 0 N � V> V) V! V! H m d! Vi V) d> V! di VI 69 m V> 6& m V) V) h O N CD N N Il- CD IT O W N CC O r- M O M CDOCM Iq CMCD NC7N� Il- NCDMe - V- I-V- � It OO V* MI- OM q' � NOT- �IONOOI- e— - e— CDN(D e— O Co v- O etOChN r- W)0(D � V- - O O O N O 0 0- - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = M O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 et � v It IV 'Q qT � Iv IT �"q v IT V IT IV m E �o U Z C 0 m /yam co y fq tN C • L L oV 0 4) C c E �Q(�Q0� aiS V uo L aa-�N iO (a m ~�a�ia�ia°i'oc'v�s Ccc'ca"iLC, 'C 0 'i= 0 C w C C w a rn J N— C co C9 v 1 C9 v C7 v N o__ C p tt it a TTT w C C��Y �MdCnfn(n 161 1. 16 I 1 Water. , Symposium 2010 Water Symposium of Florida, Inc. Project Overview PROJECT ROAD GREENSCAPE: Greening Up the Roads. Road Median / Landscaping becoming resource friendly and reducing costs The Water Symposium of Florida, Inc. (WSF) is seeking sponsorship of our 2010 activities to promote the conservation of water and "greening" of road median landscaping activities. For 2010, the WSF is undertaking a road median landscaping project in 2 -3 areas around Collier County to investigate and provide information as to how to design, set up and maintain road landscaping in a way that will provide for aesthetics, provide a cost savings, conserve water and inputs. The WSF with its partners is planning to produce a report package of plant species selections, design considerations, and irrigation options intended to provide options to government entities, and landscape professionals for road landscaping options for water conservation and cost savings. The basis of this effort will be based on the Florida Friendly Yards concept. After initial design and set up, 2 years of annual maintenance data and cost will be collected and presented at annual symposium updates and reports. Presentations are being planned for May 2010, 2011 and 2012; and a final report in 2013. Present road median landscaping designs are created to provide an immediate "picture" of the perfect "vision" at the time of planting. To achieve the perfect vision requires lots of water, lots of irrigation infrastructure and lots of cost up front in the plant selection and replacement process. The Project Road Greenscape is project is to present a different "foundation" or "core" planting that uses less water, lower initial planting costs, lower annual maintenance costs and replacements. The WSF Project Greenscape concepts provides a standard for a "core or foundation" planting that allows customization to each community's ideas. Project Greenscape seeks to provide an option for consideration using less water and reduced cost based on smart horticultural selections. Demonstration Project Locations: Marco Island: City Hall Everglades City: Road Median in front of City Hall 16 I tl BM Transportation Division Altemadve Transportation Modes Admin MSTU's & Landscape Operations (111) Mission Staftment To proves madtbsnanos of landscaped, non- andscapiA and roadstdss on selected County roadways to meat the standards adopted by the Board of County Commissioners and to support Florida Statutes Chapters 74 -191. To provide supervision, coordination, manpower and support equipment to maintain the Mghsst possible level of landscape service. To provide coordinated staff support and project management to muhiple MSTU's in roadway, stormwater and landscape beautification. FY 2010 Program Summary Total FTE ,.� CowAy MedlaN- landscape Maintenance 13.00 Field supervNbn and nn intenarroework pwkffr ed on Wxbcr;ed and non4andscaped rrnedie ns and roadsides. Complete ffw" inspections, Quartedy reports to madntafn a Mph level of maintenance. County Medians: Plan Reviews & Landscape Project Management 3.00 Plan review for new County roadwaye and ROW permits. Project managennent and coordination of landscape beautification project within the rigNof-iay, including retention ponds, median pW*ngs, signage and other butt stnxtures. MM Project Management Project management and 000rdi nation of beaurtificetion M='s. Unfilled Positions 1.00 - Current Level of Service Budget 19.00 5090,100 3,090,100 Budget Reevvenunues 4,663,646 265r3S3 2.00 171,099 Not coosOt 4,663,648 263,333 171,099 FY 2006 FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 Program Performance Measures Actual Budget Forecast Budget -'! Landscape opwalirg (maim nonce) cost per mils at LOS (Level of Service) 85,339 76,671 57,779 57.779 Number of Irrigation lane miles maintained Number of conlarke nuke mabllainsd 90.40 93.90 106.05 106.05 90.40 90.40 125.90 128,05 FY 2008 FY 2000 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2010 Program Budgetary Cast Summary Actual Adopted Forecast Current Expanded Adopted Change - -- Personal Services 1,191,595 1,135,400 1,198,700 1,144,200 - 1,144,200 0.8%- Operating Expense 3,812,245 3,899,500 3,945,300 3,945,900 - 3,945,900 1.2% — — Caofmt Outlay- -- 17.447 4,300 - Net Operating Budget 5, 021,287 5.034,900 3,1480300 5,000.100 —r- 5,090,100 1.1% 02 Total Budget 5,167 5034100 5.148 ,300 5,080.100 - 5,090.100 1.1% Total FTE ®�19AO 19.00 FY 2006 FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2010 Program Funding Sour es Actual Adopted Forecast Current lb"ndsd Adopted Change Charges Fw Swvfoss 340 - - nil Miscellanemn Revenues 16,098 - - _ - no Nat CoatUSIDGame!Fund 5.004,849 5,034.900 5,148,300 4090,100 5,090.100 1.1% Total Funding 5121 5 14i 100 i1.1�% Ffacel Year 2010 18 Transportation Division Florida Friendly Landscape Demonstration Garden I Coastal Breeze News 16 I' Pa JI Florida Friendly Landscape Demonstration Garden - - -- 1'I:In1inFla�INllli.lt� M.. \w.l.... Iw..lw lAr1. \ I \ t R 1 _ i \Lr... 1,11 Crh 11.11 17rarnn.lrau.... i•iwa+ +nr ♦1 r Mit wf rren \. m,.....m.a UM Landscaping the Florida - Friendly way means using low maintenance plants and environmentally sustainable practices that also can save money. South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the University of Florida (UF -IFAS) are leading the effort in the State of Florida to incorporate Florida Friendly Landscaping (FFL) to protect natural resources, specifically ground and surface water protection and conservation. The City's Landscape Ordinance (Section 30 -432), references Xeriscape, a terminology originally coined in Colorado that refers to practices of irrigation and plant species choices that conserve water use. This practice has morphed into FFL which still incorporates water conservation but also specific Floridian environment conditions and emphasizes pollution control to nearby surface waters. Staff will be acting to incorporate language into the current Landscape Ordinance that includes the nine principles of FFL (listed below). The 9 Principles of Florida - Friendly Landscaping (FFL) • Right Plant, Right Place • Water Efficiently • Fertilize Appropriately • Mulch • Attract Wildlife • Manage Yard Pests • Recycle • Reduce Storm Water Runoff • Protect Waterfront http:// coastalbreezenews .coml2010 /04 /221florida- friendly- landscape - demonstration - garden... 4/23/2010 16 6 � Ereryr Drop Courts Water . • symposium Water Symposium of Florida, Inc., 26310 St. NW. Naples, FL 34120 Water Symposium of Florida, Inc. 2010 Median Project Outline Date: 12 March 2010 A. Introduction B. Water Symposium of Florida, Inc. (WSF) a. 501(c) 3 non - profit organization b. Mission Statement: Educational outreach of information for Water Conservation c. Undertaking demonstration projects and symposiums since 2002. d. Partnering with Big Cypress Basin of the SFWMD C. GreenScape Project a. 2010 project: Road Median "GreenScape" b. Idea created by Commissioner Jim Coletta and Clarence Tears, of the Big Cypress Basin c. Present new planting design for road medians to: i. Improve water conservation ii. Reduce installation costs iii. Reduce Annual maintenance costs iv. Involve the community d. Scoping of Project i. Met w/ Mr. Casalanguida, and Mr. Feder to see idea was plausible to pursue ii. Met w /staff to determine extent of guidelines iii. Meeting w/ Community Organizations, Private businesses to determine interest. e. Current Data i. FY 2010 budget estimates somewhere between $40,000- $57,000 per mile per year for overall maintenance. (see attached) ii. An estimated total of $4 -5 million a year overall for maintenance iii. Estimated if all planned and constructed roads were landscaped, annual costs would be 3 times as much iv. Current gallons of irrigation water pumped is estimated to be around 160 million gallons a year, and could go to around 400 -500 million gallons a year at full build out. 16 J.J. " WSF Median Outline 12 March 2010 Page 2 f. Project proposal i. Project time length 2 years ii. Goal to produce a white paper report that quantifies the differences in the GreenScape design to allow decision makers to evaluate a alternative planting methodology. iii. Pick 3 to 4 locations and set up a demonstration project. iv. Utilize community and local government coordination to implement and maintain the projects. v. Conduct presentations and symposiums to present information as the project progresses. D. REQUEST The Water Symposium of Florida Inc. requests that the BCC consider our project for your support and endorsement, and become a partner with us in this endeavor. The WSF is also looking for partners, contributors, suppliers, landscape contractors, civic associations that can assist with this cause. Contacts: Ms. Lisa Koehler Water Symposium Liason Big Cypress Basin SFWMD (239) 263 -7615 Ext. 7603 Ikoehler@sfwmd.gov Mr. Michael R. Ramsey Water Symposium of Florida, Inc. Ramsey Inc. Ecological Consulting 239.564.1660 Michael.r.ramsev @)ramsevinc.net PETER GADDY: Beauty has its price on Collier roadways: naplesnews.com 16 W42 ` u million a year. Over a 10 -year period, the installation cost only represents 20 percent of the total cost. The maintenance cost represents a perpetual expenditure of funds. Complex irrigation systems have to be continually maintained. Some of the water used is reclaimed, some is provided by wells and the balance is drinking water. Overspray is a public safety hazard to vehicular traffic. Mulch washes into the storm sewers, which also have to be cleaned and maintained. Many of the plantings do not thrive because they were planted in soils contaminated by the road construction process. This necessitates replanting, and in some instances, the replacement of contaminated soil. The drainage available in many medians will not permit the percolation of water to a sufficient depth; the water, along with the fertilizer used to maintain the plantings, is shed to the storm drains where they become a pollutant to the bay and gulf. FDOT has over the years realized the public safety hazards of landscaping. Trees over four inches in diameter are considered a safety hazard to vehicles. Unfortunately, cars and trucks do not always stay on the marked pavement, and collisions with trees can result in fatal accidents. Clear sight lines are required at intersections and all highway - landscaping designs are required to take this into account. Aggressively growing plants don't always follow the landscape designs and sometimes do obscure a driver's vision. Some streets and shopping centers have become outright hazardous places to drive. Whether these financial, environmental, and public safety cost can be sustained is worth considering. © 2009 Scripps Newspaper Group — Online http: / /www.naplesnews.conVnewsl 2009 /dec /09 /peter- gaddy- beauty- has- its - price- collier -r... 12/11/2009 PETER GADDY: Beauty has its price on Collier roadways: naplesnews.com 6 igel of ObaNe�OCOM Read more at naplesnews.com PETER GADDY: Beauty has its price on Collier roadways By Peter Gaddy Wednesday, December 9, 2009 Why do we have so much roadway landscaping in Collier County, and can we afford to keep it? In 1987 the Florida legislature directed the Florida Department of Transportation to form a statewide beautification plan for state transportation facilities. By 1995, FDOT had promulgated the "Florida Highway Landscape Guide." The document unhesitatingly begins with the following conclusion: "The condition, safety and attractiveness of the state's urban, suburban, and rural corridors are important issues with residents of the state and travelers along the highways." Further legislation encouraged local communities to begin their own roadway beautification programs. It did not take Collier County long to jump on the bandwagon. By 1997, the county produced it's own master plan entitled " Naplescape '90s." (The document may be found under Alternative Transportation Modes on the county Web site.) At that time, only 20 miles of roadway were landscaped. Naplescape represented an ambitious plan to beautify a total of 120 miles of Collier's roadways. The landscaping plans for roadways eventually found their way into strict landscaping requirements for residential and commercial development. New commercial centers are required to set aside a minimum of 10 percent of their parking area for landscaping and require that no parked car be more the 50 feet from a tree. Recently, local residents along reconstructed Vanderbilt Beach, Rattlesnake Hammock and Immokalee roads demanded and received the lush landscaping, which characterizes much of Collier County, at a cost of $1.7 million. Our current complex landscape laws are designed to improve the appearance of development while harmonizing with the natural environment. Seems like a wonderful program that everyone can enjoy. Unfortunately, a few negatives have surfaced over the last 20 years or so. The cost of installation has continued to increase with inflation; the one mile of landscaping at the new overpass cost more than $750,000 to install. The biggest cost, however, is not the initial planting but the maintenance. It currently costs about $68,000 per mile per year to maintain the landscaping. The county is currently spending about $6 million per year on landscape maintenance costs and if all the future roads are built, that cost will escalate to $15 http:// www. naplesnews.cominewsl2009 /dec /09 /peter - gaddy- beauty -has- its - price - collier -r... 12/11/2009 New median landscape project being proposed. Lisa Koehler, Big Cypress Basin The Water Symposium of Florida, Inc, (WSF) a non - profit group dedicated to the education of water conservation and improvement of water quality in our community. The Big Cypress Basin, the local office of South Florida Water Management District, has partnered with this group over the last several years to conduct educational demonstration projects throughout the community. Water Symposium Inc. (WSF) has a proud and established history of projects promoting water conservation and information. Since 2000, WSF has provided our community with opportunities to evaluate projects, attend lectures by industry representatives, and participate in numerous social and water conservation activities. Each year a new water conservation project is selected and demonstrated to the public and this year it is the Median Greenscape Project. After being approached by Commissioner Jim Coletta and Clarence Tears of the Big Cypress Basin, this year,the WSF is creating a new roadway median landscape design using Florida Friendly Landscape Tm (FFL) principals. The WSF Median Greenscape project will use Florida - Friendly Landscape TM (FFL) principals which means utilizing low maintenance plants and environmentally sustainable practices. FFL incorporates water conservation and emphasized pollution control to nearby surface waters. New land use policies, consumer demand, and the economy are driving changes in landscape design and maintenance in residential and commercial developments. Currently, the County's FY 2010 budget estimates between $40,000 - $57,000 per mile of landscape median for overall maintenance of landscape medians with an estimated total of $4 -5 million for all medians in the county. The current gallons of irrigation water pumped are estimated to be around 160 million gallons a year and could increase to an estimated 400 -500 million gallons a year when all the medians are fully landscaped. The WSF intends to demonstrate a beautiful roadway median that will save tax payers money, reduce water consumption and surface water pollution. Three locations have been selected to demonstrate these FFL medians: • Collier County - Immokalee at Wilson • Marco Island – City Hall • Everglades City – Broadway Rd. Our yards and neighborhoods are channels to our waterways. Landscaped areas are the first line of defense for preserving Florida's fragile environment. The health of Florida's estuaries, rivers, lakes, springs and aquifers depends partly on how we landscape and maintain our yards and roadway medians. Rain that falls on yards, roads and parking lots can wash into waterways or leach into ground water, carrying pollutants — including fertilizers, pesticides, animal waste, soil and petroleum products. Improperly applied fertilizers and pesticides from residential areas pose a serious threat to the health of Florida's waters. If you interested in partnering with WSF or simply would like additional information about the project, please contact Michael Ramsey at 564 -1660 or Lisa Koehler at 263 -7615. 16I Florida Friendly Landscape Demonstration Garden I Coastal Breeze News Page 2 o� 2 To further promote the concept of FFL, the City of Marco Island is taking the opportunity to partner with SFWMD, Big Cypress Basin and the Collier County Water Symposium Board to design and plant a FFL Demonstration Garden on the City Hall campus. This area is located within pedestrian sidewalks near the entrance of the Police Department. The planting area is approximately 450 square feet and will incorporate eight species of plants in a well - designed, aesthetically pleasing landscape. The City's Beautification Advisory Committee has approved the concept, site, use of species and design. This will be a public education tool to demonstrate the FFL principals to our community. The FFL Demonstration Garden will be planted in the second week of May and should take a day to install. No cost is incorporated with this partnered project other than staff time to prepare the site prior to planting. Donations from local nurseries for plant material and installation by local landscape contractors have been coordinated. SFWMD and OF -IFAS have used their expertise on design and Parks and Recreation staff will maintain the garden while doing routine landscape maintenance on the City Hall campus for the pleasure of our community. An approved sign will acknowledge donators and contributors and plant species signs will label the species used. A proposed ribbon- cutting ceremony will occur prior to the May 17th City Council Workshop to highlight the garden and effort. Attached is a map depicting the location for the FFL Demonstration Garden and the landscape design with species listed. For more information, please contact Nancy Richie, Environmental Specialist, City of Marco Island at 239 - 389 -5003 or nrichie @cityofmarcoisland.com or Lisa Koehler, SFWMD, Big Cypress Basin office at 239 -263 -7821 or lkoehler @sfwmd.gov. Share and Enjoy: Post Published: 22 April 2010 Author: Nancy Richie Found in section: Environment Tags: Coastal Breeze News, Environment, Landscape, Marco Island http:// Coastalbreezenews .coml2010 /04 /221florida- friendly - landscape- demonstration - garden... 4/23/2010 16 1 if 014, JDRJ[l E S I G S T U D I O S LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN April 15% 2010 Mr. Darryl Richard, Collier County Traffic Operations & Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 Subject: Proposal for Golden Gate Beautification MSTU- Annual Services for Landscape Architectural Maintenance Consulting Services. RFP /BID # 08 -5060 Dear Mr. Richard, As requested, the following is presented for your review and approval. The landscape architectural services will be provided on a monthly basis generally coordinated with M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee monthly meetings. Limited Design and /or maintenance recommendation services will be quoted on a per project basis due to the unknown requirements of the work to be performed. JRL Design Studios agrees to provide the following services. Landscape Architecture Consulting Services "Scope of Services" Task 1 -V : Monthly Services (Estimated) • Perform limited on -site observations of M.S.T.U. areas with the maintenance contractor, Contract Manager and/or M.S.T.U. Committee representative for the purpose of quality assurance. • Review and comment on the "General Maintenance Report Sheets" which is required to be submitted by the Contractor with pay request submittals. • Provide written and/or oral comments and recommendations based upon on -site observations of the M.S.T.U. areas addressing: improvements, landscape plant and irrigation maintenance problems or deficiencies. • Comment on the performance of the maintenance or installation (if appropriate) Contractor in regards to the required contracted specifications. • Attend monthly M.S.T.U. meetings • Submit monthly written report to M.S.T.U. & Collier County Alternative Transportation staff 3 days prior or as requested by Collier County Alternative Transportation to M.S.T.U. meeting. Task VI : Upon Request Limited Refurbishment Design Services (Estimat • Provide limited(minor) refurbishment design services and observation of installation on an as requested basis, i.e. deliverables/functions might be as follows: • Diagrammatic area sketch planting plans with a recommended plant list. • Plant field locations by staking, flagging or paint marking. • Minor recommended design directive reports • Estimated cost opinions of minor design installation 405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 - F. 239.261.5378 - Toll Free 888.261.4007 email: studio @,jrl- design.com website: www.jrl- design.com 161l, I & W " JR o E s I G S T U D 1 0 9 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN Task VII : Upon Request Miscellaneous Services (Estimated) • Provide assistance in developing the contract maintenance specifications. • Meet with Contract Manager to review and provide comments for annual maintenance specifications updating for contract and/or bidding purposes. • Attend maintenance pre -bid meetings and assist in preparing any necessary addendum. • Interact periodically with the Contract Manager. • Provide review and comment on: • Bids and Committee agenda items • New products when requested by the Contractor and /or Contract Manager • Maintenance Contractor's ornamental spray program. COMPENSATION Task 1 through V; Basic Services Principal /Senior Landscape Architect 19 hrs. @ $128/hr. $ 2,432.00 Landscape Architect 23 hrs @ $120 /hr. $ 2,760.00 Administrative 14.03 hrs. @ $ 55 /hr. $ 771.50 Total $5,963.50(TME) Task VI — Optional Services (Upon Request Limited Refurbishment Design Services) Principal /Senior Landscape Architect 5 hrs. @ $128/hr. Landscape Architect 20 hrs @ $120 /hr. Design Associate 12 hrs. @ $ 75 /hr. Technical Staff 8hrs. @ $ 62 /hr Administrative 2 hrs. @ $ 55 /hr. Total Task VII — Upon Request Misc. Services Principal /Senior Landscape Architect 5 hrs. @ $128/hr, Landscape Architect 16 hrs @ $120 /hr. Technical Staff 12hrs. @ $ 62 /hr Administrative 6.5 hrs. @ $ 55 /hr. Total TOTAL FEE $14,171.00 (TM 405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 - F. 239.261.5378 - Toll Free 888.261.4007 email: studio @jrl- design.com website: www.jrl- design.com $ 640.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 900.00 $ 496.00 $ 110.00 $ 4,546.00(TME) $ 640.00 $ 1,920.00 $ 744.00 $ 357.50 $ 3,661.50(TME) 161,1 B'N� JR I G S T U D I O S LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN Please submit this proposal for the execution of an official work order. We are looking forward to working with your department in improving, maintaining and enhancing the M.S.T.U. areas. Respectfully P. Ri s, FASLA n of JRL Design Studios, LLC 405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 - F. 239.261.5378 - Toll Free 888.261.4007 email: studio@jd-design.com website: www.jrl- design.com 0 |' $ ;a 3.416 0 ue� . ... � 0 0 e@ > 0 non D M e R /� m t¢f� E¥ m �� m .. 200 0 E E m 07 mm @mW emm� 2I�v ee >� z m m t / /EA��q� '< a o @ o �m� q 0 > g R 02�E&fDm > f z o %/m nq�z�� q M c c �� c /§ %k 5 -n -n 0 , %_.3 z � a 2 £ U( R >D § a) -< O 0 ) /0mM => �� /L. CO) x00 r % M \§ -0 OLa 2� 2 q = v 2 2� D< (D \� -EE§ 2 Qm c m X� . v §� @ /k. M Cl) @ 2 D �f / D co 0 2 m k 0 o k Cl) aE $E/ z < Do � @ § \%\/ #/ // C�/ 2 CL -0 k \% $ a % 0 i 0 ¢m " R k CL Cl) r °° �� \�/ 5 � ^ ® 0 0 acs X 0 — a » n � / ƒ0c cn 3 --13 2 2 � ƒa 0 n 7 �0 @ ■ ¥ O ¢ co ? / Cl) m m ® EEe c p m / @@ Cl) 2 0 k �# / $@ ��o � � 4.9 =3 @ c � v K \ z g kCD // n2 0-0 -- _ 2 ERE kZ O _E 0 0 ## ¥ _¥6+ k'n n \ a -j n /k q dE�� @ 99 9 9999 @ AR R REEE --I W O 0 o � 3 O. 'D 3 _Z X O a ZO t0 0 C 0 O —I CO) N 3 N N N 3 3 ic W C N O(000vD)v(JIJ� W N OvCOao�!va7 Vt n = =NmmrnmpZ(n(nmmm W ZcnDTZ -I0K r mj;'r X p W w O 0 W-0 -1 W m 0 m* m m 0< 0 •<D)) c c c c O0((DD-0 0) 0 0 0 �w 0,r-v p M. 3 3-0-0-0-0 C(D v 3 c c c CuO O 3u0 M. c voo0o Zo wa)0)CO— 'ooNcr aOi c 0- 0- a a o C w v ni v' N 0 v 3 v 0 0 v� n� 0v - -_6,3 w� < m v7 N N O 2) poo3•N y-aa-9 -- a(D M � � O O 7 (� O - __ (p (p M N n� v)' N N CD 0 0 v cn CD _ (n p N 0 C y= = z CD oWi = N 0 (D 2 3 O v 3 rn O N O 3 W (D 3 O_ N 0 C cr 0) U3 (D (D Q W d (D O D r D m m 00 n) v m ° OytA Z r Na P � w — - o to fA b9 Q7 CP 00 V v CO O O U1 (O 0 O O O O W 0 0 0 p p W -0 O i c Q O N O v N (D 1 r- CD n n n n -n 3 3 3 3 p) 0 0 0 0 x ::r 3' =r 3' O O O O 3 3 3 3 W W � � � � � (o (n (o (n = (o (o N N N N D) D) N OD0)OO�NA 3' 3' 3• - - .-r .r W N (1\) 7 7 'O "0 7 71 O O = C7 0 0 0 (Oj (Oj 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 (�D ((D 0 a 77 0 v p � = = < 3 M O O o M a::k 3 3 3 ca (D N w N Cr co co W O O O N = v7 N N O < < < (D (D (D N n) v �I W W W W W (O (O (a N 01 N N fl1 N 0D OD -9�h .9�- � N y N N N N 7 7� 7� 7 7 Ui (T D. A .p p 0 0 0 0 0 0 n n n n (7 C7 r U 3- n D. (D m n o m v o < a o X D CT C v T Z (CD N y N C� v 0 m pa) ari (D m D a v (D� ; cnz cn ^� CD C, 00- 3 3 3 3 ° O O CD -j FoTmm v 0�, D 3 cn 0 (D r O O ' c =. (Q W N N 3 v 3 (D O U1 n D O =* n o m (n o < a o X �' 0 CT C v N N v o n- N y N C� N -n pa) 3 (D a v 3 3 y CD CD m 3 O O O O O O V9 JA to (D (D CD Q 9 -1 00 O 0 W N N O N O 0 V- -I O U1 0000 C) CA V N (D O CO O - X 0 OD N ^ 0 0 K V7 ;-_ "0 N 0 C 3 7 C K CD .. 1 90 30 . c 3 5' mmmmmmm mmmmmm mmm PvPwvvv vwvvwv wvw N-'NVA� T W O W V -I O -b- oo O 0) 00 (O O N "- N U•1 t0 O 4A 69 to to 69 to {fl 4.9 to Efl 4&9 W W 00 U1 _N -Da A. P A O OD OD v v v 66 O O O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000(JI 000000 4.949 wwtototo w- 69tototoifl W U1 CO N - U1 W N W N W" OD --1 A N V" v 00 (O -+ -1 m w V N W .06 CA V W W O N O A N O O W O OD O U1 W O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 3 00 Q) - I" OD O = O -� 3 v 3' ,- N N w w -0 - w J,O 3 -0 7 OD N w 0 -a 3 y7 go o 3 W - " W W ='• � A (D 2 � 0 - C � W 0 3 C N W 3 W90 — co v 0 v v w 0) O--L 0 — .p. O 49 <69 t!9 H9 fA 4A 4.9 fA (9 - - p N N N N OD 00 0 U) 00 O � W OOO O(ncn0 �O 0 0 0 C) C7 0 0 0 0 C O O O O O O O O V9 JA to 69 to to t n to 69 -1 00 O 0 W N N O N O 0 V- -I O U1 0000 C) CA V N N O O O O CO O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O .rte N (D 90 CD M (D n 0 3 A C 3 X n 0 V) 0 01 :o 0 O O U1 A W N O (O O v O Cr A W N O D v _ � 0 =allo 0 N0 0 — O �aN Wa) �NCiCiW Ncn -)Ci� �'3 (�D O O �. c< = 7 � = O O ' a O O �' c C -�_,• � D T. cD O O �. cD O O 3 3 a N � 3= "0 -0 'OD �' �� 3 a 3 o v, < m N v, < m N Z v. c c o o<< _"• � o (° S- � a a O c� 90 � NQo� m,Nj (D 3 3 � � � a) CCCC7�n Q(D wca n � O G p O a N N N a N om N O Z :Cn 0yv3 n Nc :3 S= 0 = < ,(c (D O CA cn 0 < X o S v CD N n O _O n O -�O NO(D lD ((Da = <<NNN ON .+ (D 3 W c o= o� a s v7 �• �' O L7 °° n a o m Z " 0 0 co p _ m (n O a< U2 a< co D v' 0 0 3° co (Q N o o �' 3 D 0 Qo D_ (D N a (D N< (� (Q' x x � O N N N� a ]� a lD (� 3 O O N 7 D O DNa) ��.� O O 0 0 CCCOOp (n N �0 N C) < (p < Cn(D O 0 0 Q°��<GOOQ� p o to � c N_ < o N o a1 (D 7C c p "� '+ N a (D (D O O N o S a w r (D N (p N< _, (D a O= Q a c r �. N w O 7- p c- a) � fD v7 fD v7 N to �• N 41 S -. (Q cfl =3 (� o 7 -p OQ D (o N N p�Wj < (D W N c< o O �. Q N m N a<j O c c- M a CL v <n = < n' v' < n' In* tD c 0 0- m m cn m 3 3 o c v m o f?o D c (D (D m p p ll1 Z N. (D c co (D vpi a 3 p 0 a) Q) p0 - 3 3 cn m- z _ N N (D (D N f° w C p� a a? ?. �� - 0 6 v O (n cn 0 _ (D < (D CD < cn (D !D p n n (=D N CD O N - N 3 0 CL a ° c Q n � N N l<D m fD n m m w w =< A v� °O cr m ,� cn @ �' (n 5 a S M- 0 cc a cn (D D d o o N go -0 a (D N O (D 0 O N �' -p,. N a c lD -3• B. O O m � ,c+ O p -` _ p_ (p N O c? p 0 a) c c 0 �' a f?o -0 0 = ° o• =° = 3 0 O o �(D =� �, -0�3 fD C a Sw S N 3° 3$< O a 0 7 7 V' 7 �' (�D N -�� ' j p (n Q N O a E< � c a) y m a a a s == : v 3 o 0 w cr CL = m ca = m CD .-: r: - < = co (o < c v a cn 3 a� w 9, m (Q' cn N < S N < - (D 3 3 fD (p p„ cD w - O a (D -Di a m ni a z z N °° 0 °o o m (�D o m �o N �o m x a� � �a��o 0 3 3 N w Cl) n n 3 n o a (D Cl) v 0 0 v (D (D 7' 7 p p � (D CD cn m C'(u w" a) a) c ccvva ca <v,3 iw 90 x o cn _ cn < Q occ o CD 000 :3 ' L o m 3 <m 'd O �N" N ° O c < a Q Qm O - 0 S y < o iv < o cD m ;' u, w m o v -n F < :U < v ' N N p o p) O (D O 0 7 Q O m- a 7 CA Cr N N a N N n 3: CD CD aCD awe v, O m � m 0 (D (D 0 _� � - r Q° m nmi ami nmi ami ami w w ami ami ami omi r r r r M m c NA w (n A A N -I A W N W W A Lrl 00 O O N A to O C7 ffl to fA to to to Efl to tf> H9 4fl fA tf� t!3 ti9 {� 0 W c = _ 0 7 N v UWi V -Al O N UA1 ((n to UAi O O C7 (D V Ln O U7 O Cl Cl O O O O O O OD O O O z O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O� "-U1(nO O 0-a O O O 0000000 OOODO00 O Z� O (FD m to to -09 t is to tq to to o to to to to to to 4.9 n 0 O W "C O A CO N W OD V (n OD p Cn w W oD w oD co oD -j w cn N O p� q A N O -1 O O O O (J1 O Ut N (O 07 O O O CD OD Cn O (n 0 0 0 0 0 0 O :P W N - O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 'o �n m M T_ n 4 0 z N x C Lo D M m r� Z a X m O T n D z e 0 3 m a C m 3 m z D m X z m D z v D m cn O D r W D m a) v m n 4 0 z C 4fl W co A OD N CO V A N N N N I W N O CO 61� L>N caw Q r N icD3'�22��2-mCD -0 A U "O n -0 -0 -O 0 3 - CD O o `� r cn Qo m m co 0 3 3 m m m 0 Z (7 C7 0 v m r c -, -2.72. w !n 0 0 d � � CD O �. t� = cn cn 0 c0 O N O O, O CT Ut < 0 O n w O w o o w< 3 0 3 00 0 O n ( < fD N a 0 c 0a w nam oC O <° ' CD n = °n (D my0� 'm � D '< < CD m n M. O o 3 O O o (y) < C o v -0 _0 3 o w m < o o CL M 0 c� m 0 � ;r < � m C) z X .n+��_ CD -0 lD C7 'd' N O -n CD w� cn co 0 M Imo 33 cr (D O O n n n O• v- CCD O n n m 3 fD c 0 (=7 n N O C D a) c m> = 4 0 w 5- n 0m a '< Dv CL v c 3 c D$`o:o' � —� fD =3 N CT (n n � N N _ w -0 3 O- ,nom � O O— O N a Q = j N -O, CD N• n nv aago w cr " — 0 O in r' Q O O C UD O o 0 5 =3 cn 0 i =3 �' O O (D c � �,6�33 05�m O 3 w m m ��0 � m 3 ,. O w 90 n � cn O y CD zWcn3 = Q° o m a O -, v m m m� 0 O tn. N 0 m m ° a N 3 a tOn Q, CD 3 CL Ln 0 � CD w a a =3 cri �cn 3c° �' w o CDi o°' CD =r a 3 y r m m m m =- m w v v v m z w D n yr cp, ;o o 0 M N cn 4fl 4.9 ifl 69 m z f.9 crrn C cn O _�� 0 0 _ 0 tV C)1 N CD O O O O O O Efl 4.9 Efl iA 4.9 69 69 N 4 O) N O A O OD Cn V N CO N Ln OD O M Cl O O O O A 0 0 0 O m O D r 3 m g D z O m --I 3 O z D -i r to O O C- C- m n 1 --1 O O CO) � (0) CO) 0) o W W W a) 4 W 49 .P O N (D v 1 (3) U1 .p W N 9:9T:9Km O 0 0 0 O � 0 O O O O o o o o :' � xxx� cn :p ;0 CD N Q 0 O y .+ O ID. CD O O O C) O > > 7 n O C N O =) 57 !D m x0 �=3 c ,m N (D N O S 4 2) N CD .� =3 o sv � o cn cn cu c SD v N ° C 5 CD CL sv CD sv cn _ aT 0 Smmmm n w v v w O -�rnw T o-69 4.9 -69 .69 CD N .+0000 M 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 to 0000 40ItflIE91Efl14A N N O 00 W N cn A � CO O O O O O O O O O O O0000 O O O O O m 1v R 0 0 O 0 O 69 O O O 0 O I O X O z D v O -v a X 2 c z m X W O c r m D X v r D z v cn n D m X D 0 z 3 m X D r Ch O v 0 U) n m v c r m co 0 0 O Z O z O n 0 O N y r � s cn m m Z O O co m z n r C m 0 Z 0 2 m C r m i 90% Median Construction Plans Opinion of Cost 161-$4 CORONADO PARKWAY & HUNTER BOULEVARD MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS PAY ITEMS /QUANTITIES PAY ITEM No. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY Unit Price Cost 101 -1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $ 151000.00 $ 15,000.00 102 -1 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC LS 1 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 102 -99 VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGN (CONTINGENT) ED 120 $ 28.00 $ 3,360.00 110 -1 -1 STANDARD CLEARING & GRUBBING LS 1 $ 22,500.00 $ 22,500.00 120 -4 SUBSOIL EXCAVATION CY 3,800 $ 7.50 $ 28,496.25 120 -6 EMBANKMENT CY 688 $ 12.50 $ 8,601.38 162 -1 -33 PREPARED SOIL LAYER, SPECIAL DEPTH CY 5,745 $ 15.50 $ 89,047.50 285 -709 BASE GROUP 9 - -6 IN TYPE B -12.5 SY 2,320 $ 37.00 $ 85,840.00 334 -1 -13 SUPERPAVE STRUCTURAL COURSE - -2 IN SP -12.5 TN 255 $ 112.00 $ 28,560.00 337 -7 -32 SUPERPAVE FRICTION COURSE - -1 IN SP -9.5 TN 128 $ 115.00 $ 14,720.00 520 -1 -8 CONCRETE C & G, TYPE F (Modified) - -16 Inch Wide LF 16,343 $ 9.00 $ 147,087.00 526 -1 -1 PAVERS, ARCHITECTURAL SY 1,489 $ 65.00 $ 96,785.00 555- 1- 1 -HDPE DIRECTIONAL BORE (LESS THAN 4 IN), HDPE LF 5,520 $ 14.75 $ 81,420.00 555 -1 -1 -PVC DIRECTIONAL BORE (LESS THAN 4 IN), PVC LF 2,942 $ 14.50 $ 42,659.00 570 -1 -1 SEED & MULCH (CONTINGENT) SY 6,215 $ 0.65 $ 4,039.75 575 -1 -2 SOD, BAHIA (CONTINGENT) SY 3,594 $ 2.00 $ 7,188.00 700 -20 -11 SIGN, SINGLE POST (12 SF OR LESS), F &I AS 3 $ 250.00 $ 750.00 700 -20 -40 SIGN, SINGLE POST, RELOCATE AS 4 $ 100.00 $ 400.00 711 -11 -121 THERMOPLASTIC, STANDARD, WHITE, SOLID, 61N LF 3,283 $ 1.001 $ 3,283.00 711 -11 -125 THERMOPLASTIC, STANDARD, WHITE, SOLID, 24 IN LF 161 $ 4.75 $ 764.75 711 -11 -170 THERMOPLASTIC, STANDARD, WHITE, ARROW EA 55 $ 100.00 $ 5,500.00 711 -11 -221 THERMOPLASTIC, STANDARD, YELLOW, SOLID, 6 IN LF 1,700 $ 1.00 $ 1,700.00 711 -11 -224 THERMOPLASTIC, STANDARD, YELLOW, SOLID, 18 IN LF 340 $ 4,00 $ 1,360.00 706 -3 RETRO - REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT MARKER EA 150 $ 4.50 $ 675.00 715-4 -400 LIGHT POLE COMPLETE, RELOCATE EA 13 $ 2,100.00 $ 27,300.00 715 -14 -42 LIGHTING PULL BOX, RELOCATE /ADJUST EA 61$ 550.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 750,336.63 Page 1 of 3 1611 - !, 00 90% Median Construction Plans Opinion of Cost PAY ITEM NOTES: 102 -1 INCLUDES THE COST OF ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL RELATED ITEMS, INCLUDING VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGNS, ARROW PANELS, SIGNAGE, BARRICADES, TEMPORARY STRIPING, AND ANY OTHER DEVICES NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THE TCP DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE COST OF THE TCP PREPARATION AND PROCESSING OF THE ROW PERMIT SHOULD BE INCIDENTAL TO THIS PAY ITEM. COLLIER COUNTY WILL PAY FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY ROW PERMIT FEES, AS APPLICABLE. 102 -99 THIS IS A CONTINGENT ITEM AT THE OPTION OF THE OWNER TO PROVIDE PUBLIC INFORMATION MESSAGES REGARDING THE PROJECT AND MAYBE USED AT THE OPTION OF THE OWNER AS AN ADDITIONAL AID TO IMPLEMENT THE TCP. 110 -1 -1 REMOVAL OF EXISTING CURB AND ASSOCIATED PAVEMENT WITHIN THE MEDIAN IS INCIDENTAL TO THIS PAY ITEM, AS APPLICABLE. SAW CUTTING THE EXISTING PAVEMENT TO REMOVE THE EXISTING CURB IS INCIDENTAL TO THIS PAY ITEM. 120 -4 THIS PAY ITEM REFERS TO THE EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL OF THE EXISTING IN SITU FILL MATERIAL THAT IS TO BE REPLACED WITH THE MEDIAN TOPSOIL BACK FILL. THE SUBSOIL MATERIAL MAYBE USED AS EMBANKMENT IF IT MEETS APPLICABLE CRITERIA. THE SUBSOIL QUANTITY IS CALCULATED TO A TRUCK MEASURE VOLUME OF 1.5 TIMES THE IN PLACE VOLUME. 120 -6 THIS PAY ITEM REFERS TO THE FILL NEEDED TO DEVELOP THE MEDIAN FILL SECTION, EXCLUDING THE TOPSOIL PORTION OF THE FILL SECTION. THE SUB SOIL MATERIAL MAYBE USED AS EMBANKMENT IF IT MEETS APPLICABLE CRITERIA. THE EMBANKMENT FILL QUANTITY IS CALCULATED TO A TRUCK MEASURE VOLUME OF 1.5 TIMES THE IN PLACE VOLUME. 162 -1 -33 THIS PAY ITEM REFERS THE MEDIAN TOPSOIL BACK FILL DEPICTED IN THE "PROPOSED MEDIAN FILL SECTION" IN THE SPECIAL DETAILS SHEET. ADDITIONAL TOPSOIL SPECIFICATIONS ARE PROVIDED ON THE SPECIAL DETAILS SHEET AS WELL AND ARE INCIDENTAL TO THIS PAY ITEM. THE MEDIAN TOPSOIL BACKFILL QUANTITY IS CALCULATED TO A TRUCK MEASURE VOLUME OF 1.5 TIMES THE IN PLACE VOLUME. 285 -709; 334 -1 -13; COST OF EXCAVATION TO CONSTRUCT THESE ITEMS IS INCIDENTAL TO THESE PAY ITEMS, AS 337 -7 -32 APPLICABLE. SUPERPAVE WEIGHT IS CALCULATED AT 110 LBS /SY /IN Page 2 of 3 90% Median Construction Plans Opinion of Cost PAY ITEM NOTES (Continued): 520 -1 -8 COST OF EXCAVATION, CURB PAD (4 IN LIMEROCK OR ASPHALT BASE) AND COMPACTED SUBGRADE IS INCIDENTAL TO THIS PAY ITEM. COST OF SAW CUTTING EXISTING PAVEMENT IS INCIDENTAL TO THIS PAY ITEM. CONST CURB PER FDOT INDEX 300 FOR TYPE 'F'. MODIFIED REFERS TO 10 INCH GUTTER, FOR A TOTAL WIDTH OF C & G = 1 FT ,4 IN VS A STD TYPE 'F' = 2 FT. 526 -1 -1 COST OF 61N CLASS I CONCRETE SLAB, MORTAR SET, AND BEDDING SAND AS DEPICTED IN THE "TYPICAL MEDIAN CONCRET PAVERS DETAIL" ON THE SPECIAL DETAILS SHEET IS INCIDENTAL TO THIS PAY ITEM. A 10% WASTE FACTOR IS INCLUDED IN THE QUANTITY, 570 -1 -1; 575 -1.2 THESE ARE CONTINGENT ITEMS AT THE OPTION OF THE OWNER. 2 FT SOD STRIP ALONG BOC AND SEED & MULCH OTHER INTERIOR AREAS - -IF LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS ARE DELAYED AND REQUIRE INTERIM GRASSES. WATERING FOR A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS (TWICE A WEEK) IS INCIDENTAL TO THESE PAY ITEMS, AS APPLICABLE. A 10% OVERAGE HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE PLAN QUANTITY AREAS. 700- 20 -11; 700 -20.40 COST OF SIGN POST SLEEVE WITHIN PAVER AREAS (REFER TO SPECIAL DETAIL), SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THIS PAY ITEM, AS APPLICABLE. 715 -4-400 THIS INCLUDES AN ADDITIONAL PULL BOX (IF REQIRED) AND EXTENDING/ TIEING INTO THE EXISTING WIRING AND CONDUIT, AS APPLICABLE. COORDINATION WITH FP &L IS INCIDENTAL TO THIS PAY ITEM. 715 -14 -42 THIS INCLUDES ADJUSTING AN EXISTING PULL BOX IN A PAVER, OR A LANDSCAPE AREA TO THE PROPOSED GRADE. ALL NUMBERS ANY MATERIALS OR PERFORMANCE TESTING REQUIRED (I.E. SOIL ANALYSIS, SOIL DENSITY, CONCRETE STRENGTH, GRADATION, ETC.) BY THE SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE PERFORMED IN CONFORMANCE TO THE SPECIFICATIONS AND INCIDENTAL TO THE APPLICABLE PAY ITEM NUMBER. ALL NUMBERS SURVEY STAKE OUT SHALL BE PERFORMED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A PROFESSIONAL LICENSED SURVEYOR IN CONFORMANCE TO THE SPECIFICATIONS AND INCIDENTAL TO THE APPLICABLE PAY ITEM NUMBER. RECORD DRAWINGS SHALL BE PREPARED BY THE CONTRACTOR, AS APPLICABLE FOR CONSTRUCTED DEVIATIONS FROM THE PROJECT PLANS AND INCIDENTAL TO THE APPLICABLE PAY ITEM NUMBER. Page 3 of 3 16 ktlt 1 . 6 Ari 614 GOLDEN GATE ,' �t ADVI Sm jp 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, Fl. 34104 MINUTES I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 4:08 p.m. by Richard Sims, Chairman. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Peggy Harris, Barbara Segura, Richard Sims, Pat Spencer, Michael McElroy County: Darryl Richard — MSTU Project Manager, Michelle Arnold, ATM Director Others: Michael McGee — McGee & Associates, James Stephens - Hannula, Richard Tindell — JRL Design, Sue Flynn — Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add: IX A. Water Symposium Richard Sims moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes —May 11, 2010 Add: C. 2nd paragraph. - There was too much (OJT) on the job training. Change: C. Last paragraph - MSTU does not always have a landscape architect consultant. Confirm: X. 3rd paragraph — They offered a total concept design for any 500' area. No change required. The Committee requested transcriber review record minutes prior to approval. 1 07� i.= - - M Monday, March 23, 2009 Fiala _._..� 6:30 p.m. Halas Fire Station 71 — Golden Gate Boulevard Henning Coyle Coletta JUL 2 Q 2010 Committee Members Chairperson: Karen Acquard • Vice - Chairman: Jeffrey Curl Member: Stephen Greenberg Member: David Farmer Member: Pat Humphries AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Approval of Minutes — January 26, 2009 & February 3, 2009 III. Approval of Treasurer's Report IV. Request for Land Transfer from Parks & Rec Department — 47+ acre parcel (update) V. Big Cypress Elementary School — Playground Request (update) VI. Boundless Playground (update) VII. Golden Gate Fire District — Fire Shelters Funding Request (update) VIII. Golden Gate Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals Funding Request (update) IX. Big Corkscrew Fire District Fire Shelters Funding Request (update) X. Public Comment/Other Discussion XI. Next Proposed Meeting Date — May 25, 2009 (Memorial Day) XII. Adjournment Misc. Corres: Date: o@ D a t) Item t T-C 1 C^l±ies to: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 6:30 p.m. Big Corkscrew Island Fire District Station 10 JUL 2 9 2010 ........................ 1. Call to Order 11. Approval of Minutes — March 23, 2009 IV Committee Members Chairperson: Karen Acquard Vice - Chairman: Jeffrey Curl Member: Stephen Greenberg Member: David Farmer Member: Pat Humphries AGENDA Approval of Treasurer's Report — Ending Cash Balance - $1,581,551.41 Available Cash Balance - $1,401,320.41 Fiala Halas _ Henning Coyle Coletta Request for Land Transfer from Parks & Rec Department — 47+ acre parcel (update) — No Update. V. Big Cypress Elementary School — Playground Request (update) — Linda Toombs has met with Barb from the All Kids Play Foundation. The AKPF is requesting a letter of intent from Big Cypress in order for them to help. Linda will need to discuss this option with the other Board members. Big Cypress currently has an engineer in place and the next step is to go to the showroom to start developing the playground. V1. VII. VIII IX. X. XI: XII. X11I. Boundless Playground (update) — All funding reimbursement has been provided to the All Kids Play Foundation and they have begun the construction on the playground. Golden Gate Fire District — Fire Shelters Funding Request (update) — Still waiting for invoices to be provided by the District. Golden Gate Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals Funding Request (update) — Still waiting for invoices to be provided by the District. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Fire Shelters Funding Request (update) — Waiting for second invoice from the District. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals Funding Request (update) — Waiting for invoice from the District. Public Comment/Other Discussion — Ordinance pertaining to service on County Boards Land Trust Money Next Proposed Meeting Date — July 27, 2009 Adjournment Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: C ^pies to: wot. - u& a Y - . 16 Monda July 27, 2009 6:30 p.m. Fiala ✓ Big Corkscrew Island Fire District Station 10 Halas Henning JUL 2 9 2010 c tt M b Coyle B I. Call to Order II. IV, V. VI. VII omm Coe em Cora Chairperson: Karen Acquard Vice - Chairman: Jeffrey Curl Member: Stephen Greenberg Member: David Farmer Member: Pat Humphries AGENDA Approval of Minutes — March 23, 2009 & May 20, 2009 Approval of Treasurer's Report — Request for Land Transfer from Parks & Rec Department — 47+ acre parcel (update) — Big Cypress Elementary School — Playground Request (update) — Boundless Playground (update) — Golden Gate Fire District — Fire Shelters Funding Request (update) — VIII. Golden Gate Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals Funding Request (update) — IX. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Fire Shelters Funding Request (update) — X. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals Funding Request (update) — XI. Public Comment/Other Discussion — XII. Next Proposed Meeting Date — September 28, 2009 XIII. Adjournment Coletta Misc. Comes: Date: Item S. B 1 Ml Xo"" Xato 15ft" 11�ta=m " 6 V11 Monday, September 28, 2009 Fiala 6:30 p.m. Halas p 130=11111 Big Corkscrew Island Fire District Station 10 Henning JUL 2 9 2010 Committee Members Co Coytffa Chairperson: Karen Acquard Vice- Chairman: Jeffrey Curl B• Member: Stephen Greenberg ........................ Member: David Farmer Member: Pat Humphries AGENDA I. Call to Order Il. Approval of Minutes —July 27, 2009 III. Approval of Treasurer's Report IV. Abundant Life Christian Center — Steve Soto V. Sheriff's Office Gun Range VI. Finance Representative VII. Sound System — Max Hasse Park VIII. Solid Waste Land Swap IX. Boundless Playground (Update) X. Golden Gate Fire District — Fire Shelters (Update) XI. Golden Gate Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals (Update) XII. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Fire Shelters (Update) XIII. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals (Update) XIV. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Training System Funding Request XV. PR for Land Trust Committee XVI. Chair and Vice Chair XVII. Next Meeting Date — November 23, 2009 XVIII. Adjournment Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: Copies to: (Ird,An Aire wmat& (J&a =a amm&4 6 11 B Monday, December 7, 2009 Fiala ✓ 6:30 p.m. Halal Big Corkscrew Island Fire District Station 10 Henning 133UL �� Coyle �Olo Committee Members Coletta 2 9 Chairperson: Karen Acquard Vice - Chairman: Jeffrey Curl Member: Stephen Greenberg Member: David Farmer Member: Pat Humphries AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Approval of Minutes III. Approval of Treasurer's Report IV. Finance Department V. Dan Rodriguez — Solid Waste VI. Boundless Playground (Update) VII. Golden Gate Fire District — Fire Shelters (Update) VIII. Golden Gate Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals (Update) IX. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Fire Shelters (Update) X. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals (Update) XI. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Training System Funding Request XII. Next Meeting Date — January 25, 2010 XIII. Adjournment Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: Copies to: (Vdd4Monday, January 25, 2#0 2-D l0 M (Va(O �&aft and 5ZO aM446 I B1i 6:30 p.m. Fiala _ Big Corkscrew Island Fire District Station 10 Halas _ 3 01311T S Henning 2010 Committee Members Coyle JUL 2 9 Chairperson: Karen Acquard Coletta Vice - Chairman: Jeffrey Curl Member: Stephen Greenberg Member: David Farmer Member: Pat Humphries AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Approval of Minutes III. Approval of Treasurer's Report IV. Solid Waste (Update) V. Available /Reserved List VI. Golden Gate Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals (Update) VII. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Fire Extinguisher Training System (Update) VIII. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals (Update) IX. Next Meeting Date — March 22, 2010 X. Public Comments /Other Discussion XI. Adjournment Misc. Corru: Date: Item #: B Monday, March 22, 2010 Fiala ✓ 6:30 p.m. Halos Big Corkscrew Island Fire District Station 10 Henning `' II Coyle Committee Members COletta JUL 2 9 2010 Chairperson: Karen Acquard Vice - Chairman: Jeffrey Curl Member: Stephen Greenberg Member: David Farmer Member: Pat Humphries AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Approval of Minutes — January 25, 2010 Ill. Approval of Treasurer's Report IV. Map of Estates V. Golden Gate Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals VI. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals VII. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Fire Extinguisher Training System VIII. Public Comments /Other Discussion IX. Next Meeting Date — May 24, 2010 Misc. Corres: Date: _ X. Adjournment Item #: Copies to: xw-,V.. Monday, May 24, 2010 6:30 p.m. Fiala Nalas Big Corkscrew Island Fire District Station 10 Henning d Coyle JUL 2 9 2010 Coletta Committee Members Chairman: Jeff Curl Vice - Chairperson: Karen Acquard Member: Stephen Greenberg Member: David Farmer Member: Pat Humphries AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Approval of Minutes — March 22, 2010 III. Approval of Treasurer's Report IV. Golden Gate Fire District — Chief Metzger V. Golden Gate Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals (Update) VI. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals (Update) VII. Public Comments /Other Discussion VIII. Next Meeting Date — Monday, July 26, 2010 IX. Adjournment Misc. Comes: Date: Item * C ^hies to: 16 14 '811 CA/ / ii Monday, March 23, 2009 6:30 p.m. Golden Gate Estates Fire Station 71 100 13th St. SW Naples, FL 34120 Golden Gate Estates yan l3iw — Property Acquisition Specialist, Real Property Management Distribution: Minutes — January 26, 2009 & February 3, 2009 Special Meeting Treasurer's Report Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District funding request handout I. Call to Order — This meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee was called to order by Chairperson Karen Acquard at 6:32 p.m. II. Approval of Minutes — The first item on the agenda is the approval of minutes for the January 26, 2009 and the special meeting which was held on February 3, 2009. A motion was made by David Farmer to approve the minutes as presented and a second to the motion was made by Jeff Curl. There was no further discussion and the minutes were approved unanimously. III. Treasurer's Report — The next item on the agenda is the approval of the Treasurer's Report. The Treasurer's Report was presented by Real Property Management staff. The 1611 'g111 total cash balance is $1,683,737.68 and the available cash balance is $1,505,804.63. After a brief discussion regarding the pending funding amounts, a motion to approve the Treasurer's Report as presented was made by David Farmer. A second to the motion was made by Jeff Curl. There was no further discussion and the Treasurer's Report was approved unanimously. IV. Request for Land Transfer from Parks & Rec Department — 47+ acre parcel (update) — Staff advised the Committee that there was no update on this item. V. Big Cypress Elementary School — Playground Request (update) — Staff advised the Committee that there was no update on this item. VI. Boundless Playground (update) — Staff advised the Committee that the first reimbursement check was presented to the All Kids Play Foundation. The final two invoices are currently being processed and will be presented to the All Kids Play Foundation upon receipt by staff. VII. Golden Gate Fire District — Fire Shelters Funding Request (update) — Staff advised the Committee that the invoices are currently being process by the District and staff will process the invoices upon receipt from the District. VIII. Golden Gate Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals Funding Request (update) — Staff advised the Committee that we are trying to get this item before the Board of County Commissioners at their April 14, 2009 meeting. IX. Big Corkscrew Fire District Fire Shelters Funding Request (update) — Staff advised the Committee that the invoices are being processed. Chief Rita Greenberg personally handed the first invoice to staff prior to this evening's meeting. Chief Greenberg advised that the second invoice should be arriving shortly. Following the update on the Fire Shelters Funding Request, Chief Rita Greenberg made a presentation in which she was requesting funding for Mobile Data Terminals to be used by the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District. A handout was provided to the Committee by Chief Greenberg. This handout outlined the equipment being requested as well as the funds being requested. Chief Greenberg gave a brief presentation and then fielded questions from the Committee. The issue of cost was brought up by the Committee. The Committee asked if there was any money coming from the stimulus money that was granted by President Obama. Chief Greenberg advised that there are funds in the amount of $15 billion that are allotted for facilities construction for fire and rescue services. These funds would be awarded on a grant basis. It has not been specified how much each state will get. The funds have only been earmarked for fire /rescue services. 161 A BI I The Committee asked Chief Greenberg about the FEMA grant that the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District was getting toward the purchase of the same equipment for their district. Chief Greenberg advised that the funding cycle is over. Another issue that was brought up by the Committee was the possibility of negotiating a better price for the purchase of the Equipment. Chief Greenberg advised that she could look into getting a better price for the Equipment. The Committee agreed to give Chief Greenberg a week timeframe to find a better price for the equipment. Chairperson Karen Acquard asked for a motion to approve the funding request. Vice - Chairperson Jeff Curl made a motion to approve the reimbursement of funds in an amount not to exceed $50,370 for the purchase of the Equipment. A second to the motion was made by Pat Humphries. With no further discussion, the motion was approved unanimously. X. Public Comment /Other Discussion — Staff presented the Committee with materials pertaining to the distribution of the Land Trust Committee money. Staff was not able to get anybody from teh Finance Department to attend tonight's meeting but was in contact with Finance and was directed to the materials that were presented to the Committee. Also, a request was made by Pat Humphries at a previous meeting for a map showing all of the GAC owned properties. Staff advised that they have not yet been able to prepare that map and would have it for a future meeting. XI. Next Proposed Meeting Date — May 25, 2009 — Since the next proposed meeting date is Memorial Day, a new date for the meeting had to be determined. After a brief discussion, it was determined that the next GAC Land Trust Meeting would be held on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. at the Big Corkscrew Fire District Station #10. XII. Adjournment — With no further business to discuss a motion for adjournment was made by David Farmer and a second to the motion was made by Jeff Curl. The motion for adjournment was approved unanimously. This meeting of the GAC Land Trust Committee was officially adjourned at 7:29 p.m. , ar n M. Ac C irperson Wednesday, May 201 2009 6:30 P. m. Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District Station 10 13250 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 J,won ✓ how — Property Acquisition Specialist, Real Property Management Distribution: Minutes — March 23, 2009 Treasurer's Report Ordinance 2009 -16 Finance Chart and Graphs I. Call to Order — This meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee was called to order by Chairperson Karen Acquard at 6:30 p.m. II. Approval of Minutes — March 23, 2009 — Jeff Curl raised some concerns about the Minutes as presented. One issue was dealing with the issue of how the Land Trust money is being invested and having someone from Finance in attendance to discuss with the Committee. Staff advised the Committee that we were not able to get anyone in attendance from Finance for tonight's meeting but that staff did have something to present later on the agenda. The second concern was regarding the language stating that Chief Greenberg was to look into getting a better price for the equipment. The Committee gave her a week timeframe to do that and Jeff felt that that should be clarified in the minutes. The final concern was regarding Pat Humphries request for a map 1601811 showing the GAC Land Trust owned properties. Staff advised that that project has not been completed yet. With no further discussion, a motion was made by Jeff Curl to approve the minutes pending the revisions and a second to the motion was made by Pat Humphries. With no further discussion, the minutes were approved pending the revisions. III. Approval of Treasurer's Report — The next item on the agenda is the approval of the Treasurer's Report. The ending cash balance for this month is $1,581,551.41 and the available cash balance is $1,401,320.41. The difference between the ending cash balance and the available cash balance is the pending reimbursement for the fire shelters and mobile data terminals for the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District and the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District. Chairperson Acquard inquired about the section of the report that stated Capital Outlay remitted to other Government. Staff advised that this was the money that was given to the Boundless Playground as well as the first round of invoices for the Fire District funding. A motion to approve the Treasurer's Report was made by Jeff Curl and a second to the motion was made by Stephen Greenberg. With no further discussion, the Treasurer's Report was approved unanimously. IV. Request for Land Transfer from Parks & Rec Department — 47 +acre parcel (update) — Staff advised the Committee that there were no updates for this item. V. Big Cypress Elementary School — Playground Request (update) — Staff received an email from Linda Toombs who advised that she has met with Barb from the All Kids Play Foundation and the All Kids Play Foundation is requesting a letter of intent from Big Cypress in order to get the All Kids Play Foundation's assistance. Linda is going to take that request to her board for their guidance. Linda stated that they have an engineer in place and the next step is to go to the showroom to start developing the playground. It was clarified that the Big Cypress group is looking for new flooring for their existing playgrounds and not new equipment. It was also clarified that they are not looking to build a Boundless Playground and are only talking to the All Kids Play Foundation for their assistance. VI. Boundless Playground (update) — Staff advised the Committee that the All Kids Play Foundation has been reimbursed for all invoices that have been presented by the All Kids Play Foundation and that construction was set to commence on the playground. There was also a brief discussion as to how the Committee would like their name to appear at the Boundless Playground. VII. Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District — Fire Shelters Funding Request — Staff advised the Committee that they were waiting for the invoices to be provided. VIII. Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District — Mobile Data Terminals Funding Request - Staff advised the Committee that they were waiting for the invoices to be provided. 16 41, Bli' IX. Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District — Fire Shelters Funding Request - Staff advised the Committee that they were waiting for the invoices to be provided. X. Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District — Mobile Data Terminals Funding Request - Staff advised the Committee that they were waiting for the invoices to be provided. XI. Public Comment /Other Discussion — Staff had two items to present to the committee during this section of the agenda. The first item was regarding the new ordinance pertaining to service on County Boards. Committee members are now allowed to participate in multiple County Boards and term limits have been eliminated. The second item presented by staff was regarding the Land Trust money and how it is being invested. Staff was not able to get anybody from the Clerks office to speak to the committee but the committee was presented with a small packet showing how the funds were distributed. It was explained to staff that the Land Trust's money was invested with everybody else's money. The committee would still like to have a representative from the Clerk's office come to our next meeting to explain how the money is being invested. Staff advised that they would attempt to coordinate with the Clerk's office to have somebody at our next meeting. Committee member Pat Humphries requested that a map of the Estates be provided by Staff. Staff advised that they would work on preparing a map and would present it to the Committee upon completion. XII. Next Proposed Meeting Date — July 27, 2009 — The next meeting date was discussed amongst the members and the next meeting will be July 27, 2009. The site of the meeting is to be determined as Chief Rita Greenberg is to contact staff about the possibility of moving the Land Trust Committee meetings permanently to Big Corkscrew Station 10. XIII. Adjournment — With no further business to discuss, Chairperson Acquard called for a motion to adjourn. A motion for adjournment was made by Jeff Curl and a second to the motion was made by Stephen Greenberg. With no further discussion the motion for adjournment was approved unanimously. This meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. 161;1 Bi I Monday, July 27, 2009 6:30 p.m. Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District Station 10 13250 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 G7i � ymon y3bea — Property Acquisition Specialist, Real Property Management Distribution: Minutes —March 23, 2009 & May 20, 2009 Treasurer's Report I. Call to Order — This meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee was called to order by Chairperson Karen Acquard at 6:30 p.m. II. Approval of Minutes — May 20, 2009 — The Committee was under the impression that someone from Finance was going to be in attendance at tonight's meeting. Staff advised the Committee that there would not be anyone in attendance from Finance at tonight's meeting. Another issue to be discussed with regard to the minutes was the Boundless Playground. The Committee was advised that all of the reimbursement money has been provided. There was some confusion as to whether all of the reimbursement meant the entire $150,000 or if it meant that the AKPF had been reimbursed for all of the invoices that have been received to this point. Staff advised that all of the reimbursement money meant that the AKPF has been reimbursed for all of the invoices that they have presented 1611 '91 14 up to this point in time. The Committee requested that that be clarified in the minutes to reflect that the reimbursement is for the invoices presented to this point, not the entire $150,000.00 Jeff Curl reiterated that the Committee would really like to have someone from Finance in attendance at our next meeting to explain how the Committee's money is being invested. Jeff also brought up Pat Humphries' request for the map of the estates. Staff advised that they have not had an opportunity to prepare the map yet but that they were working on it. There was no further discussion on the minutes. At this time, a motion was made by Jeff Curl to approve the minutes pending the changes suggested by Karen Acquard. A second to the motion was made by David Farmer. The minutes, pending the suggested changes, were approved unanimously. III. Approval of Treasurer's Report — The Committee discussed getting someone from the Finance Department in attendance for one of our Committee meetings to discuss how the Land Trust's money is being invested and to answer questions from the Committee members regarding the Land Trust's finances. Staff advised that they have not been following up as diligently as they could have due to other projects but assured the Committee that they would make every effort to get someone in attendance for our September 28, 2009 meeting. The next item on the agenda is the approval of the Treasurer's Report. The available cash balance and the ending cash balance are the same, $1,578,192.24. A question was brought up by David Farmer regarding the inventory reserved number that is on the Treasurer's Report. Staff advised that this number is the value of the land on the Reserved List. David asked how accurate this number was and Staff advised that it is out of date. Staff advised that Finance provides the numbers on the Treasurer's Report. Jeff Curl asked about the Beginning Fund Balance, 10/01/07 — unaudited. Staff advised that that would be a question to ask Finance. The Committee again stated the urgency to get someone from Finance to our next meeting to discuss how the figures are being determined and how the money gets invested, etc. David Farmer made a motion to accept the Treasurer's Report pending someone from Finance attending our September meeting to answer the Committee's questions regarding the figures on the Treasurer's Report. A second to the motion was made by Jeff Curl. The motion to approve the Treasurer's Report was approved unanimously. IV. Request for Land Transfer from Parks & Rec Department — 47+ acre parcel (update) — Staff advised that there was no update on this particular item. 1611 'B11 Karen Acquard stated that she had spoken to Marla regarding this item. Marla advised Karen that they cannot get Right of Way to get back to the property as they are still fighting with the School. The Committee had a brief discussion regarding the background of this project as some of the Committee members were unfamiliar with the situation. Jeff Curl asked if it would make sense to write a letter to the School District from the Committee requesting a School representative to come to one of our meetings to discuss this issue. The Committee requested that Staff look into the feasibility of having a representative of the school or maybe Marla or Barry Williams in attendance at one of our meetings to discuss the situation. V. Big Cypress Elementary School — Playground Request (update) — The next item on the agenda is an update of the Big Cypress Playground request. The Committee expressed some confusion in what the Big Cypress representatives are requesting. The Big Cypress reps advised that they are going to a showroom to look at equipment however, staff advised that they have not been given any indication that they were requesting more than flooring for the playground. The Boundless Playground representatives were in attendance and have been working with the Big Cypress representatives. It appears that the Big Cypress representatives are now looking to do an entire playground, however they have only come before the Committee about flooring. As a result, the only thing that the Committee could potentially fund would be flooring. If they are looking at an entire playground they will either have to come to the Committee again to make an additional request or they will have to fund the playground equipment on their own. The Committee requested that we remove this particular item from our agenda until they come back to the Committee with an update or new information. Staff advised that we can take it off the agenda for now and if they do come back before the Committee, we can put it back on the agenda. VI. Boundless Playground (update) — The Boundless Playground representatives (AKPF) were in attendance at tonight's meeting to give an update on the status of the playground and the funding requests. Staff advised that they received an invoice which actually put the funding over the $150,000 figure that was in the Agreement. The AKPF advised that while the invoice was for a total of $57,121.37, they were only requesting the reimbursement for a portion of it ($53,029.26). This keeps them under the $150,000 Agreement amount. Karen stated that when the motion for the reimbursement was made she was under the impression that this amount was to include the assembly, installation, etc of the equipment. It was suggested that in the future, this is clarified. 1611 "1' B11 The AKPF stated that they are done with the project and the playground is open, however, the AKPF is requesting additional reimbursement for unforeseen expenses that arose during the construction and completion of the playground. The Committee agreed to provide an amount not to exceed $5,000.00 for the drainage, site adjustments and other unforeseen expenses that arose during construction. A motion to approve the additional funding request was made by Jeff Curl and a second to the motion was made by David Farmer. The motion to reimburse an amount not to exceed $5,000.00 for drainage and site adjustment was approved unanimously. VII. Golden Gate Fire District — Fire Shelters Funding Request (update) — Staff advised that at this time we are still waiting for invoices. VIII. Golden Gate Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals Funding Request (update) — Staff advised that at this time we are still waiting for invoices. IX. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Fire Shelters Funding Request (update) — The check for this invoice has been received and delivered to Big Corkscrew. X. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals Funding Request (update) — Staff advised that at this time we are still waiting for invoices. XI. Public Comment /Other Discussion — There was no public comment. David Farmer inquired about whether the Committee members would be open to listening to a request from the Park Service to purchase a sound system for Max Hasse Park. The committee was in favor of hearing a presentation on this matter. The issue of a special meeting for this request was discussed, however, if a special meeting is not held then this will be on the agenda for the September 28, 2009 meeting. David also inquired as to whether or not he could write a check for this funding request and then be reimbursed. It was determined that this could be a violation of the Sunshine Law and therefore was not recommended. David then mentioned that he has an acquaintance that would be willing to write the check and be reimbursed. The Committee wasn't sure if that would be feasible. Karen recommended that David call Toni to discuss this issue to see if David's acquaintances' Foundation could front the money for this request and then be reimbursed. Being that this equipment is mobile, the issue of the equipment being used outside the Estates was discussed. This was similar to the mobile weatherstation which can be used all over the County. The only caveat with that is that it must be housed in the Estates when it is not in use. There was a brief discussion for the benefit of the new members explaining why everything has to be approved by Avatar. 1611 '911 1 XII. Next Proposed Meeting Date — September 28, 2009 — The next meeting will be held on September 28, 2009 at the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District Station 10. XIII. Adjournment — A motion for adjournment was made by David Farmer and a second to the motion was made by Pat Humphries. The motion to adjourn the meeting was approved unanimously. This meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. 1611 gi i Monday, September 28, 2009 6:30 p.m. Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue bistrict Station 10 13250 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 �. Is ywon 53iw — Property Acquisition Specialist, Real Property Management Distribution: Minutes — July 27, 2009 Treasurer's Report I. Call to Order — This meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee was called to order by Chairperson Karen Acquard at 6:30 p.m. II. Approval of Minutes — July 27, 2009 — During discussion, it was noted that the information provided for numbers IX & X in the minutes were reversed. These particular items are regarding the Big Corkscrew Fire District Fire Shelters (IX) and Mobile Data Terminals (X). The correct information is Mobile Data Terminals check has not been received by Staff and the Fire Shelters check has been received and has been presented to the District. Jeff Curl made a motion to accept the minutes after the correction was made. A second to the motion was made by Pat Humphries. With no further discussion, the minutes (pending correction) were approved unanimously 3 -0. One member was absent and one member abstained from voting as he was not present at the meeting in which the minutes were recorded. 1611 B11' III. Approval of Treasurer's Report — The next item on the agenda is the Treasurer's Report. Staff presented the figures on the Treasurer's Report. The ending cash balance is $1,479,045.55 and the available cash balance is $1,316,010.95. A question was asked as to whether the figures on the report were just the cash available or if these figures also included the value of the property in the Land Trust's possession. Staff advised that the figures on the Treasurer's Report were for cash only and the value of the property was not included with these figures. Another question was raised by the Committee regarding the pooled cash. Staff advised that they would have to investigate this issue and would advise the Committee at the next regular meeting. A motion to accept the Treasurer's Report was made by Stephen Greenberg and a second to the motion was made by Jeff Curl. With no further discussion, the Treasurer's Report was approved unanimously 4 -0. IV. Abundant Life Christian Center — Steve Soto — Staff advised the Committee that there would not be a presentation from Mr. Soto regarding this request. Staff advised that after the agendas were distributed some concerns were raised regarding whether or not the Land Trust Committee could fund a church. Staff advised that they requested an opinion on this matter from the County Attorney's Office. It was the opinion of the County Attorney that this was not something that the Land Trust Committee could fund. As backup, staff also contacted Avatar and advised them of the County Attorney's opinion. Avatar concurred with the County Attorney. Staff contacted Mr. Soto and Josi Teeters via email and advised them of the situation. Mr. Soto responded and advised that he had received the email and he understood. V. Sheriffs Office Gun Range — Staff advised the Committee that this item is to be removed from the agenda. The Leasing representative from Real Property Management advised staff prior to the meeting that the parcel that was being considered was incorrectly identified with an incorrect folio number. The parcel that the Sheriff's Office requested was already in their possession, therefore a request from the Land Trust Committee was not necessary. VI. Finance Representative — Staff advised the Committee that there would not be a representative from the Finance Department at tonight's meeting. Staff advised that at about noon today they spoke to the Finance representative and were advised that due to extraordinary circumstances he would not be able to attend tonight's meeting. Staff was advised that Finance certainly wants to attend a meeting and discuss the finance issues with the Committee. Staff advised Finance that our next meeting was scheduled for November. The Finance representative advised that he should be available for that meeting. VII. Sound System — Max Hasse Park — There was nobody in attendance for this agenda item. Staff advised the Committee that this was put on the agenda due to the discussion at the last meeting. At the last meeting there was discussion about possibly holding a special meeting for this item. When staff was not advised of any interest in a special meeting, staff took it upon themselves to add this to the agenda. VIII. Solid Waste Land Swap — Sue Zimmerman — A presentation was made by Sue Zimmerman from Real Property Management. Solid Waste Management is looking to do a land swap with the Land Trust. The property of interest is the property located at the Randall Curve. 161'1` 611 Solid Waste would like to request from the Land Trust a land swap in which the Land Trust would consider swapping a parcel at the Randall Curve property for a piece of land at the NE Facility that will be added to what Parks & Rec currently has for use as a regional park as well as a recycling center. After a discussion regarding this issue, the Land Trust Committee stated that they would like the County to come back and show the Committee the proposed plans for the property. The Committee stated that they would like the County to come back to a later meeting to discuss this issue further. This item will be presented at the next Land Trust Committee meeting. IX. Boundless Playground (Update) — The Boundless Playground held their Grand Opening on Saturday, September 26, 2009. The Committee was presented with a picture and a trophy which was shown at the meeting. Chief Rita Greenberg of the Big Corkscrew Fire District is going to allow the picture and trophy to be displayed in their office. With regard to the additional funding, Staff advised that there is currently a request for a Letter of No Objection with Avatar for the additional funding of an amount not to exceed $5,000.00. Staff has also sent an email to Cassy with the All Kids Play Foundation regarding getting the Agreement signed by the Foundation. After getting the Agreement signed by the Foundation and getting the Letter of No Objection from Avatar, Staff will proceed with taking this before the Board of County Commissioners in October. X. Golden Gate Fire District — Fire Shelters (Update) — Staff advised that we are still waiting for the invoice on this particular item. XI. Golden Gate Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals (Update) — Staff advised that we are still waiting for the invoice on this particular item. XII. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Fire Shelters (Update) — Staff advised that the District has been reimbursed for $17,196.40 of the requested $28,746.00. Chief Greenberg provided a letter to Staff advising that they would not need the remaining balance of $11,549.60. XIII. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals (Update) — Chief Greenberg advised the Committee that the Mobile Data Terminals have been ordered and that they should be received in the next couple of weeks. Chief Greenberg advised that they were able to get the MDT's for about $10,000 less than had been requested. XIV. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Training System Funding Request — This next item is a new request by Chief Greenberg on behalf of the Big Corkscrew Fire Control and Rescue District. This request is for the Bu11Ex Fire Extinguisher Training System. Chief Greenberg presented the Committee with a packet explaining the system that is being requested and she requested funding from the Committee to purchase this particular system. After a brief discussion on this item, a motion to provide the District with an amount not to exceed $10,000 for the purchase of the System was made by Jeff Curl and a second to the motion was made by Pat Humphries. With no further discussion, the request was approved 3 -0. One member is absent and one member abstained from voting. 161Q''811 XV. PR for Land Trust Committee — Staff advised that they had discussed this issue with Jeff Curl and wanted to put it on the agenda to be discussed by the Committee. This item was brought to attention by the fact that the Land Trust Committee was not mentioned in some media outlets when they were reporting on the Boundless Playground. Jeff Curl was thinking about getting the Committee on Facebook and/or Twitter to get the Land Trust name out to the public and make the Land Trust Committee more visible to the public. The Committee was inquiring as to why we could not use the County PR person to get our name out to the public. Staff advised that they would investigate and report back to the Committee. XVI. Chair and Vice Chair — The next item on the agenda is the election of officers. Current Chairperson Karen Acquard recommended that Vice - Chairman Jeff Curl be her successor. Stephen Greenberg made a second to the motion and the motion was approved unanimously. Jeff Curl then made a motion to make Karen Acquard Vice - Chairman. A second to the motion was made by Stephen Greenberg. The motion was approved unanimously. Effective at the next Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee meeting the officers will be Jeff Curl — Chairman and Karen Acquard — Vice - Chairperson. XVII. Next Meeting Date — The next proposed meeting date is scheduled for November 23, 2009. Staff advised the Committee that that date is the Monday before Thanksgiving. After a brief discussion, the Committee determined that November 23 was not a good date to hold the next meeting. The next meeting will be held on December 7, 2009. Chief Rita Greenberg, who was in attendance at tonight's meeting, confirmed that the room will be available for December 7. XVIII. Adjournment — With no further business to discuss, Chairperson Karen Acquard called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. A motion for adjournment was made by Jeff Curl and a second to the motion was made by Stephen Greenberg. With no further discussion, the motion for adjournment was approved unanimously. This meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. xmkn (Vaeo wAfte& -cland =m 6 1 Thursday, October 29, 2009 6:30 p.m. Fiala ✓ ,_ Halas Big Corkscrew Island Fire District Station 10 Henning Committee Members Coyle JUL 2 9 2010 Chairperson: Karen Acquard Coletta Vice - Chairman: Jeffrey Curl Member: Stephen Greenberg Member: David Farmer Member: Pat Humphries AGENDA 1. Call to Order II. Jeff Curl Appointment III. Max Hasse Community Park Sound System IV. Adjourn Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: Copies to: am"ican empowtion (GAC) Thursday, October 29, 2009 6:30 p.m. Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District Station 10 13250 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 Jars Jai. — Property Acquisition Specialist, Real Property Management Distribution: Handout from Shannon Peters outlining Max Hasse Purchase Request I. Call to Order — This Special Meeting of the GAC Land Trust Committee was called to order by Chairperson Karen Acquard at 6:31 p.m. II. Jeff Curl Re- Appointment — The first item to be discussed is the re- appointment of Jeff Curl. A motion was made by David Farmer and a second to the motion was made by Pat Humphries that the Committee recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Jeff Curl be re- appointed to the GAC Land Trust Committee. The motion was approved unanimously. III. Max Hasse Park Sound System Request — A presentation was made by Shannon Peters from Parks and Recreation regarding a sound system for the Max Hasse Community Park. Ms. Peters presented the Committee with a handout which outlines the items being requested along with the cost of the items. A copy is attached. Ms. Peters advised that they had already obtained some of the Sound System Equipment which includes the CD Player, iPod jack and 2 speakers but she was requesting funding for the additional equipment for the system as well as extra speakers. After the presentation and discussion the Committee agreed to allow for reimbursement in an amount not to exceed $7,200 for the purchase of the remaining sound system and associated equipment. A motion was made by David Farmer and a second to the motion was made by Pat Humphries. With no further discussion, the motion was approved unanimously. 16V 1 'IV. Adjournment — At this point, the Chairperson called for a motion to adjourn. A m on was made by David Farmer and a second to the motion was made by Pat Humphries. With no further discussion, the motion to adjourn was approved unanimously. This Special Meeting of the GAC Land Trust Committee was adjourned at 7:17 p.m. 1611 B11 i , Monday, December 7, 2009 6:30 p.m. Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District Station 10 13250 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 yon 9keo — Property Acquisition Specialist, Real Property Management Distribution: Minutes — September 28, 2009 & October 29, 2009 Treasurer's Report I. Call to Order — This meeting of the GAC Land Trust Committee was called to order by Chairman Jeff Curl at 6:30 p.m. II. Approval of Minutes — The first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the September 28, 2009 meeting and the October 29, 2009 meeting. The only revisions to the minutes were made by Jeff Curl. With regard to the September 28, 2009 meeting, in the item for the Chair and Vice Chair, Jeff would like the word "regular" added to clarify that this was at the regular meeting as opposed to the Special Meeting. With regard to the October 29, 2009 meeting, Jeff had a question about the speakers that the Parks and Rec department were requesting. Jeff asked that the language in the minutes be clarified as the minutes are a bit confusing when compared to the attachment that was supplied by Shannon Peters. Ms. Peters advised the Committee at the meeting that some of the equipment was already purchased even though it was still outlined on the attachment. The minutes will be updated to reflect what was discussed at the meeting in addition to the information on the attachment. 1611 B1 With no further discussion, a motion was made by Karen Acquard to approve the September 28, 2009 minutes and a second was made by Pat Humphries. Karen Acquard made a motion to approve the October 29, 2009 Special Meeting minutes and a second to the motion was made by David Farmer. Both sets of minutes were approved unanimously pending the revisions requested. III. Approval of Treasurer's Report — The next item is the presentation of the Treasurer's Report. Staff advised that the Ending Cash Balance is $1,476,858.37 and the Available Cash Balance is $1,376,738.37. The Committee decided to hold off on approving the Treasurer's Report until hearing from Derek Johnssen from Finance, which is the next item on the agenda. After the discussion with Derek Johnssen, a motion to approve the Treasurer's Report was made by David Farmer and a second to the motion was made by Karen Acquard. The Treasurer's Report was approved unanimously. IV. Finance Department — Derek Johnssen — Mr. Johnssen was in attendance this evening to answer questions that the Committee had regarding the Treasurer's Report and how the money in the Trust is invested. Mr. Johnssen advised that all of the Committee's money is invested in the Board of County Commissioner's pool investment program. Mr. Johnssen briefly explained the investment program and answered questions from the Committee. Members of the Committee were asking about prolonging the life of the Committee through investing. As it currently stands, the Committee will cease when all of the property and all of the money is spent. The Committee members would like to be able to earn money on the money that is in the fund to continue the Committee into the foreseeable future to benefit the residents of Golden Gate Estates. A question was brought up as to whether the money in the Land Trust belongs to the Land Trust Committee or the Board of County Commissioners. The Committee advised Staff to check with the County Attorney's Office on this issue. The Committee would like to have more say and control over the money that is in the Land Trust Fund. Staff will get clarification from the County Attorney's Office over who actually controls the money and based on those findings, the Committee will determine how they would like to proceed. V. Dan Rodriguez — Solid Waste — The next item on the agenda is a presentation by Dan Rodriguez from Solid Waste. Mr. Rodriguez's presentation was presented on PowerPoint with accompanying handouts to the Committee members. Mr. Rodriguez was in attendance to speak to the Committee about the Northeast Recycling Center. There is a potential opportunity with Parks and Rec, Solid Waste and GAC. Mr. Rodriguez went through the PowerPoint presentation then took questions from the Committee. Solid Waste is looking to do a land swap for the existing site located at the future Northeast Water and Sewer Plant for a parcel located at the Randall Curve site in order to obtain the land necessary for the proposed recycling center. Mr. Rodriguez stated that they are projecting 4 or 5 acres will be needed for the site. 1611 B11 After the presentation and a discussion period between the Committee and the Mr. Rodriguez, it was determined that the Committee would like the Solid Waste Department to get the reaction of the neighbors living in the area of the proposed recycling center. The Committee would like to have the citizens' reactions and opinions before making any decisions. VI. Boundless Playground (Update) — Staff advised the Committee that the final check in the amount of $4,850 was delivered to Cassy and that this project was complete. This item will be removed from future agendas. VII. Golden Gate Fire District — Fire Shelters (Update) — Staff advised the Committee that this item has been ordered, received and paid for. This item will be removed from future agendas. VIII. Golden Gate Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals (Update) — Staff advised the Committee that they have been in touch with the District and was advised that they should have an invoice to the County in after the first of the year. Staff also advised the Committee that this request had to go before the Board of County Commissioners for a re- appropriation of funds as the funding request has carried over to the new fiscal year. The Committee recommended that Staff attempt to get in touch with Chief Sapp regarding this particular request as he was the person who presented the request to the Committee. Staff advised that they would call Chief Sapp to follow up on the status of this particular funding request. IX. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Fire Shelters (Update) — Staff advised the Committee that this item has been ordered, received and paid for. This item will be removed from future agendas. X. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals (Update) — Staff advised the Committee that they have received an email from Chief Rita Greenberg advising that she would not be in attendance at tonight's meeting to give an update on the status of the purchase requests. Staff advised the Committee that they have received an invoice from the District and a check was being processed. Staff advised that a re- appropriation of funds was necessary since the request has carried over into the new fiscal year. Per Chief Greenberg's email, the District has received the laptops and they are currently awaiting the mounting bracket and installation. XI. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Training System Funding Request (Update) — Staff advised the Committee that this item is scheduled to go before the Board of County Commissioners at their December 15, 2009 meeting. XII. Next Meeting Date — January 25, 2009 — The next proposed meeting date of January 25, 2009 was agreeable to all members. XIII. Adjournment — With no further business to discuss, Chairman Jeff Curl called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. A motion was made by David Farmer and a second to the motion was made by Karen Acquard. 1611 B1'- This meeting of the GAC Land Trust Committee was officially adjourned at 7:49 p.m. �rf 1611 B11 Monday, January 25, 2010 6:30 p.m. Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District Station 10 13240 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 you i,13vwa — Property Acquisition Specialist, Real Property Management Distribution: Treasurer's Report Reserved and Available Parcel List List of Projects Funded by the Land Trust I. Call to Order — This meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee was called to order by Chairman Jeff Curl at 6:30 p.m. 11. Approval of Minutes — The first item on this agenda is the approval of the minutes from the December 7, 2009 meeting. All committee members have reviewed the minutes and there was no discussion or changes recommended to the minutes. Chairman Curl called for a motion to approve the minutes as presented. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Karen Acquard and a second to the motion was made by Pat Humphries. With no further discussion, the minutes were approved 4 -0. 1611 g11 III. Approval of Treasurer's Report — The next item on the agenda is the approval of the Treasurer's Report. The ending cash balance is $1,449,639.77 and the available cash balance is $1,364,189.77. The Committee members reviewed the Treasurer's Report as presented by Staff. There was a brief discussion regarding the pending items on the Treasurer's Report which make up the difference between the actual cash balance and the available cash balance. Staff advised that they have received one invoice from Big Corkscrew for the Mobile Data Terminals and that they were awaiting the remainder, the invoice for the Fire Extinguisher Training System was just given to Staff this evening at the meeting and the Golden Gate Fire District has yet to provide an invoice for the Mobile Data Terminals. Chairman Curl called for a motion to approve the Treasurer's Report as presented. A motion to approve the Treasurer's Report was made by David Farmer and a second to the motion was made by Karen Acquard. With no further discussion, the Treasurer's Report was approved 4 -0. IV. Solid Waste (Update) — Staff advised the Committee that there were no updates to present at this time. V. Available/Reserved List — Staff added this item to the agenda because of some questions that were raised at the last meeting with regard to the Land Trust's Reserved and Available parcel list. There was a brief discussion regarding the lists and what exactly the properties were reserved for. VI. Golden Gate Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals (Update) — Staff advised that they are still waiting to get the information back from the District and that they had until April to present Staff with the invoice as per the Agreement. Staff advised that their last contact with the District was in November or December at which time Staff was advised by the District that they would have the paperwork for the purchase processed after the first of the year. At this time, Staff has not received any paperwork nor received any contact from the District. Staff advised that they would follow up with the District to get an update on the status of the transaction. VII. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Fire Extinguisher Training System (Update) — Staff advised the Committee that they were provided with the invoice for the Fire Extinguisher Training System when they arrived at the District office for tonight's meeting. 1611 ` B11 Andy from the Big Corkscrew Fire District was in attendance to demonstrate the new Fire Extinguisher Training System. After the meeting was adjourned for the evening, Andy gave a brief overview of the system and its components. The Committee members then joined Andy in the parking lot for a demonstration of the system. VIII. Big Corkscrew Fire District — Mobile Data Terminals (Update) — Staff advised the Committee that they have received one invoice from the District for this purchase and are currently awaiting the second invoice. IX. Next Meeting Date — March 22, 2010 — The next proposed meeting date of March 22, 2010 was agreeable to all members. X. Public Comments /Other Discussion — Staff provided the Committee with a list of all of the purchases that the Committee has contributed to since the inception of the Committee. Staff and the Committee also discussed the matter in which the agendas and minutes are given to the Committee members prior to all meetings. Currently, the minutes and agendas are mailed to the Committee members and the Treasurer's Report and all other handouts are provided at the meeting. The Committee has no issue with receiving the agendas and minutes via email only and not receiving them regular mail. The Committee advised that they would still like to receive the Treasurer's Report and all other handouts at the meeting. Staff advised that that would not be an issue. Therefore, it was agreed that the agendas and minutes will be emailed to the Committee members and the remaining handouts will be provided at the meeting. XI. Adjournment — With no further business to discuss, Chairman Curl called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. A motion for adjournment was made by David Farmer and a second to the motion was made by Karen Acquard. The Committee voted 4 -0 to adjourn the meeting. This meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee was officially adjourned at 7:00 p.m. J efftu'rl',t�a—iA-an 1611 B11 .1 Monday, March 22, 2010 6:30 p.m. Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District Station 10 13240 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 jwon jgiw — Property Acquisition Specialist, Real Property Management Distribution: Treasurer's Report Estates Map I. Call to Order — This meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee was called to order by Chairman Jeff Curl at 6:30 p.m. II. Approval of Minutes -- January 25, 2010 — The first item on tonight's agenda is the approval of the minutes from the January 25, 2010 GAC Land Trust Committee meeting. Chairman Curl asked if everyone had a chance to review the minutes and asked if anyone had any comments or changes to make to the minutes. With no comments or changes, Chairman Curl called for a motion to approve the minutes as presented. A motion to approve the minutes as presented was made by David Farmer and a second to the motion was made by Karen Acquard. With no further discussion, Chairman Curl called for a vote. The minutes were approved unanimously. 1611 B1 1 III. Approval of Treasurer's Report — All Committee members have had an opportunity to review the Treasurer's Report as presented by Staff. Chairman Jeff Curl called for a motion to approve the Treasurer's Report. A motion to approve the Treasurer's Report was made by Karen Acquard and a second to the motion was made by David Farmer. With no further discussion, the Committee voted unanimously to approve the Treasurer's Report as presented. IV. Map of Estates — At a previous meeting, the Committee had inquired about a map of the Estates showing the location of the properties that are currently in the possession of the Land Trust Committee. Staff prepared a map and presented it to the Committee. The map identifies all of the properties on both the reserved list and the available list. Staff advised that due to the size of the map that Staff would not make copies for each member but rather would bring the map to all subsequent meetings to have as reference. V. Golden Gate Fire District -- Mobile Data Terminals — Staff advised that they have been in contact with the Golden Gate Fire District and Staff was advised that the invoices were being prepared. Staff is awaiting the invoices and will process upon receipt. VI. Big Corkscrew Fire District -- Mobile Data Terminals — Staff received an email from Chief Greenberg in which she advised that she would not be in attendance at this evenings meeting. Chief Greenberg did however provide an update to Staff which was then relayed to the Committee. This update stated that the District has received the computers, mounting brackets and wireless communications devices and were awaiting the software. The District advised that they should be able to remain within the one year time frame which expires on April 28. VII. Big Corkscrew Fire District -- Fire Extinguisher Training System — Staff advised the Committee that this particular transaction has been completed and all reimbursements have been made. Therefore, this item will be removed from future agendas. VIII. Public Comments /Other Discussion — The next item on the agenda are the Public Comments and Other Discussion. There was no public comment, however Committee member David Farmer inquired about having meetings quarterly as opposed to bi- monthly as they are currently held. This particular topic was discussed by the Committee and it was agreed by the Committee and Staff that we would continue to schedule the meeting bi- monthly but prior to each meeting, the Committee members would review the upcoming agenda to determine if it is reasonable to gather for a meeting. Staff will have to follow up on this to check on the requirements on how many meetings are required to be held. This item will be followed up on at the next meeting. IX. Next Meeting Date -- May 24, 2010 — Everyone was agreeable to the next proposed meeting date of May 24, 2010. X. Adjournment — With nothing further do discuss, Chairman Curl called for a motion to adjourn this meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee. A motion to adjourn was made by David Farmer and a second to the motion was made by Stephen Greenberg. This meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee was adjourned at 7:14 p.m. 161 C Bl 1 1611 B11 Monday, May 24, 2010 6:30 p.m. Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District Station 10 13240 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 I� I, i Jason Bires — Property Acquisition Specialist, Real Property Management Distribution: Treasurer's Report I. Call to Order — This meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee was called to order by Chairman Jeff Curl at 6:31 p.m. 11. Approval of Minutes — March 22, 2010 — The first item on tonight's agenda is the approval of the minutes from the March 22, 2010 meeting. Everyone has had an opportunity to review the minutes as presented by Staff. There was no discussion and a motion to approve the minutes was made by David Farmer. A second to the motion was made by Pat Humphries. With no further discussion, Chairman Curl called for vote on the minutes as presented. The minutes were approved unanimously (3 -0). 111. Approval of Treasurer's Report — The next item on the agenda is the approval of the Treasurer's Report which was presented by Staff. The total cash balance of this month's Treasurer's Report is $1,410,813.28 and the available cash balance is $1,403,613.28. The difference of $7,200.00 is due to the pending reimbursement for the purchase of the Max Hasse Park sound system. There was a brief discussion regarding some of the past questions dealing with the investment of the funds and who the money actually belongs to. This particular issue is 1611'.. 811 awaiting clarification from the County Attorney's Office. With no further discussion, Chairman Jeff Curl called for a motion to approve the Treasurer's Report. A motion to approve the Treasurer's Report as presented was made by David Farmer and a second to the motion was made by Pat Humphries. The Treasurer's Report was approved unanimously (3 -0). IV. Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District — Chief Metzger — The next item on the agenda is a meeting with Chief Metzger of the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District to discuss possible locations for a new station on Everglades Blvd., south of Golden Gate Blvd. Earlier in the day, Chief Metzger's assistant emailed Staff requesting information pertaining to the parcels that the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District had reserved for them in the Land Trust, what parcels the Land Trust has available and how much money the Land Trust has in their account. Staff provided this information to the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District. Chief Metzger explained to the Committee that the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District would like to build a new fire station south of Golden Gate Blvd and that the District would like the station to be located on Everglades Blvd. Staff provided a map of the Estates which showed all of the Land Trust parcels that are currently on the reserved list and the available list. The District currently has 4 parcels reserved for them on the reserved list however none of those 4 parcels appear to meet the location criteria that the District is looking for. The parcels also appear to be too small to accommodate a fire station. During the discussion between the Chief and the Committee, a figure of 3 acres was mentioned as the minimum lot size that would be needed to build a new fire station. There were some other options discussed such as a land swap but in looking at the current inventory of Land Trust parcels, it does not appear that there are many options for the location that the District is looking for. Chief Metzger advised the Committee that he has met with and had discussions with the School about possible locations but that those discussions were in the early stages and no decisions have been made at this time. V. Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District — Mobile Data Terminals (Update) - The next item is an update on the status of the reimbursement to the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District for the purchase of the Mobile Data Terminals. Chief Metzger, who was in attendance for the previous item gave the Committee an update on the Mobile Data Terminals. Chief Metzger stated that the units were installed in the trucks and were being used by the fire fighters. Staff advised that all reimbursements have been provided to the District and that this item is closed and will be removed from all future agendas. VI. Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District — Mobile Data Terminals (Update) — Staff advised that all reimbursements have been provided to the District and that this item will be removed from all future agendas. VII. Public Comments /Other Discussion — The next item is the Public Comments and Other Discussion. There was nobody from the public in attendance this evening. Therefore, there were not public comments. Staff had one item to discuss and that was with regard to the Facebook/Social Networking site. Staff advised that the information has been sent to the IT Department to be designed and Staff was hopeful that the site would be up and running in time for the next scheduled meeting in July. VIII. Next Meeting Date — July 26, 2010 — The next proposed meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 26, 2010. Chairman Jeff Curl advised that he may not be available for that date and stated that he would let staff know for sure at a later date. Staff advised that even if he could not attend the meeting, as long as we had a quorum, Vice Chairperson Karen Acquard could conduct the meeting in his absence. IX. Adjournment — With no further business to discuss, a motion for adjournment was called for by Chairman Jeff Curl. A motion for adjournment was made by Pat Humphries and a second to the motion was made by David Farmer. The motion for adjournment was approved unanimously (3 -0). This meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Jeff , J.RL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 405 5th AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 239 - 261 -4007 1611, I��clsc��e �rcl�itect's field re��ort COPY TO: ® OWNER ❑ ARCHITECT ❑ ENGINEER ❑ CONSULTANT ® _MSTU Committee_ PROJECT: Golden Gate MSTU - PO# 4500118406 REPORT NUMBER: 5 CONTRACTOR: Hannula Landscaping — Jim Stephens JRL COMM No: 9018 Date: 6/28, 7/1, 7/2 Weather: S Clouds & Estimate % Complete: N/A Humid / Rain Time: 11:30 — 1:30 Temp Range: 95 Schedule Conformance: As scheduled PRESENT: June 28 & July 2: Richard Tindell, solo July 1. 2010: Darryl Richard and Pam from Lulich - Collier County & Richard Tindell, landscape architects WORK IN PROGRESS: Contractor not present OBSERVATIONS: Site is looking good, Little trash observed. Routine maintenance work has been performed. REVIEWS: Maintenance agreement, previous suggestions, designs and work orders REPORT: The community presents a pleasant palette of plant material which contributes to an identity which is unique to Golden Gate. There appears to be very little evidence of damage from the cold weather we experienced last winter and in most places maintenance is good. With the exception of Collier Blvd very little trash along the road ways was noted on any of this months visits. There are several places in many of the medians along Collier, Golden Gate and Tropicana were weeds are becoming a problem and unless addressed soon could easily get out of control. Chemical (especially in paver areas) and manual solutions will work in most instances. Roadway trash (litter) and weed growth are very challenging and on going problems (among the most often cited citizen complaint received by public works departments). The median in Golden Gate are well above average. The beach sunflower on Collier is very weedy and difficult to keep looking nice and full - replacing it with Emerald Isle ficus or Ilex nana would help correct both problems. The Crown -of -thorn beds on j.RL 161.1 61p LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 405 5th AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 239 -261 -4007 Tropicana should be hand weeded and additional mulch applied, the same is true for some of the liriope beds on Golden Gate. The allamanda in the median on Green needs filling in. After weeds are controlled under the sable and crape myrtle plantings on Golden Gate the open areas would benefit from ground cover plantings such as macho fern, Emerald Isle ficus or confederate jasmine - funding may be available in Fund 111. Proposal from Contractor as a contracted replacement is requested. The dead foxtail and sabal palm on Golden Gate should be removed and not replaced - the area appears to be infected with a fungus that attacks palm and makes successful replacement doubtful. Dead palmetto and juniper were observed on Collier and should be replaced. The Ligustrum Tree on Golden Gate is still in the median from traffic a previous incident and needs to be removed and replaced. There is a Magnolia Tree in Collier is leaning (traffic ?) and needs to be up righted and staked. During this correction the roots and structure of the trunk should be inspected and the LA and Project Manager present. All planting areas need to be trimmed to meet County and FDOT standards, especially within site triangles. Bougainvilla sprouts and low hanging tree branches require immediate attention. The required clear view zone is between 24" and 72 ", FDOT also requires 14'6" clear over traffic areas and 10' clear over sidewalks. Mowing seems behind schedule all though the recent heavy rain and hot weather promotes faster growth and delays - will monitor. Pictures were taken for record and detail comments will be reviewed with the project manage and the Contractor at the July 12 drive about prior to the MSTU meeting ACTION REQUIRED: Meet with landscape contractor. Review schedules and contractors reports. Review outstanding work orders, designs and proposals previously requested or issued to Hannula . Request more direction from County and MSTU Board. Reported by: Richard Tindell, asla, registered landscape architect LA767 A Ag Ni... to -4 owa w W w W Nw w00WVNJ0 cW r AW wW NO"0W W -4 00 JAJ c�m OOmprrvr KNZm -vgc5mm Ommmcc mm D v- � lmmnm —� m r Dmm zGoo zZ q ;um-- iimom -nE Oo«T•mi —mi T--i r- <�MmmDmzZC� =�D��Mc�nmm cmm m m m O�9p—p0> z— c�D -mm ��O o§mo—cm OmCOC��mmzDm �m -Jozm00z Ozz 5.� DiMMMOZ m -=I z =p C.) z(n(n c (n-v�m _mp-4D OZ c>O-AmT O -aim 0 —M� m ,Z � to m _ Z �O� O z mc�OpNZZD �> �DZR (n G) r v U Om(n ?' U) 3 58 3888858 AEA EA fA 69 eA EA I W N N §08 A O 8 M s o mpN N T o L T T ErC � d d Ay 3 3 EA H EA 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 H 69 69 EA 69 691 w D' r" m Z c N 1 N � C I' r, MmDDM;U mZ�-n zOm�zzmmm=r> 0U - <-<00 ZM - -j MM -n -n mm C: moo m� ;u ;u cn -AzMr- D O�MMKKnn�zmm z 00 D O mm Z � '"m�cmmmmM�� 0o mzoM m I m z cn 0 r � (O W A Ut --� OM A j J A V71 O v N J_ in s 3� 8 8 �� A OD Cl) O J O O rn 0 A 69 69 69 69 O W 0 N O — _- ^ N (O _ fA to 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 M 69 I W - N N 71 (Tl U1 U1 N 8 0 0-�8- (°i�'8 8 w A 67 69 69 69 69 69 iA 69 69 69 co o CL � cSi cn in s 3� 8 8 �� 388 8 88 8 rn 0 A 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 N (O , N, N (O _ 00 O n 0 O O Cl) 0 O O 1i A 3 O J — �I O O 3 N O O 69 Hf H 69 69 69 44 fA 69 69 H EA 69 EA 69 69 69 EA EA 69 69 69 69 69 it 7 69 69 69 69169I" 69 69 EA EA EA 69 69 69 EA 69 69 FA 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 fA 69 M EA 69 69 69 69 69 EA J ^ NN_ 4111NN pQN� N W ------ 1 N W O (D W O O <O co S�OSOSSSN(VOSASSS 88 tl. f�Si�B ° (a• (B• n n n d �_ C y a >v v d 0 0 0 7 rrc > > > r 0.0.0.0 n m g N_ �((ppp1 c% c d m- 0 01 C 7 (D N N IIf . oo pa Oil 7. �. cc �0 z CDC r @ j M� 0 W N r O O Oj N 0 0 A '' V A J V 0 �o NN J W co O O N O A 4 N N N IrC — ITr- rr (n (nr-r50 mr- m mTlm00m p 2 q 9 obi x•� —� — (D U �•; .. 0 CT y 5 5 to 0 �w U ID m y r O to > EA EA &9 EA EA EA EA 4E9 EA b9 EA 69 Efl EA EA EA EA EA Efl EiE 1.0 EA fig EA Eyq o A N W A N OD 0 A' �8888Pd8W�8 88888- 0—) 88 -O ^pp (Wpb NN N N J ((O v W CO 9 69 69 EA 69 Ut_ 1 N 0 3 0 G 0 T m d o D D c'r 01 T CL D m m Q fD O r v m z c) L �Tm �cW Nv� N -► o�T C) n D 0 z ra c co o (n v y j O M y Q W v J rn 0 (A N (O , N, N (O _ 00 O 0 0 O O Cl) -A W O O 1i A O O J — �I O O O O N O O 69 Hf H 69 69 69 44 fA 69 69 H EA 69 EA 69 69 69 EA EA 69 69 69 69 69 A N W A N OD 0 A' �8888Pd8W�8 88888- 0—) 88 -O ^pp (Wpb NN N N J ((O v W CO 9 69 69 EA 69 Ut_ 1 N 0 3 0 G 0 T m d o D D c'r 01 T CL D m m Q fD O r v m z c) L �Tm �cW Nv� N -► o�T C) n D 0 z ra c Im r 1 0 I. 0 O L � C N dl N � FrS O CA C c ,... O a (a o o o w N co a N N N "U O O O G �0 m o rn rn � @ � ° ;K a— CL � � � 0 N (D n fo f?0 go � ( � � N 0 c 0 0 �O c0) c0) 2 N CD rn 90 -, — CA CJ" CA L" CJM cn CJl CP C" L" C" (P (n cm 0 � CP cn cn m cn 000000000000 O O O =;• 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M O O O O O J J J J J J J J J J J J G) G) J J J (1 J J J J J C7 C7 J J J i-i• 'p J �1 J �1 J n N CO L" "N V 0 O N CTi V J W � A -► L�• -� Cb W CA O Cr O -� O N O) -� O N A co Cr V W -► V V -► O N V .1� -� N W N O CA W .A. W IN CJi M A V Ci0 O CO —� O Cn N M Cn A O 0 V N N O N O •A -� 4A 4A + 40 4A 40 4A 44 40 40 40 4A 4A 4A 40 69 4A 40 4A 44 4A 44 An 4A i i CO � N W CA CO -4 i ~ i O W N O w O W O 40 9 40 4A 69 44 40 69 69 49 40 69 69 69 4A 6A d9 64 44 69 4A Z t0 W O -► -► O 0 CA W IV -► CA A -+ < 4 CA W W O CA CA 00 Cr i V Cl - O W O O -4 C70j O 41A 4A 4A 4A b9 49 4A 60 69 4A 69 69 69 69 6A 4A 69 4A 6A 69 4A 4A 4A 44 .9 i v 00 CA i N V co (D V K3 i i Q> OD CO A CA -+ O i W O O V 4R 69 69 69 4A 4A 4A d9 49 69 4A 4A 4A 40 4A 4A 4A FA 69 4A 4A 49 4A 4A 40 O W N Q CU 0) W co O N -+ i I I I P 1 I I I 1 1 � I p 1 I TWA Po O_ O O O 1 O O 1 1 t I I O QOi O 404 69 6A 4A 4A 44 69 69 4A 4A 69 4A GA 4A 6A 4A 69 49 4A 4A 69 4A 4A 4A 69 W `4 N 00 (C) -+ 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 i p I A I 1 1 OD 00 1 i N Q i W J tD N Ul CA O A I I IV t I 1 O CA i O O O v V 4A 4A 69 b9 N 69 4A 4A 4A 40 4A 4A 6A 69 40 b9 4A 69 44 4A 4A 49 4A 4A W 3 N �C (A � cC' � � N A ..• TKO, O O O O -4 0O 0 N Q 00 1!i 49 40 6A 69 44 69 40 69 44 4A 44 <A 69 69 44 44 69 69 4!9 i D tPA N O V N O CNp O O W ? 40 4A 4A 4A 69 6A 40 4A 69 4A 4A CA N (NIY O V A W O 1 O I W CA I I i i (,A Q: O O (D I O N O A O W C1i �a 4A 4A 4A 69 69 69 N CA 4 C P Co VA W O O A.► O W p O O000 L C i O D �J 1 J O m O 40) 40 40 4A 4A 4A 40 40 N► 40 40 4A 40 4A 40 4A 4A tO 40 40 40 4A 44 40 40 40 40 i O N N OD O4 i N CA ep 00 00 N W V -4 0 O V 4& W i CA A i O m to cA N w o 0-P. w m N w CA o w i o-4 v, •� o o y V l 1 W W w 00 -� N N OD V O 00 O O 00 p. t0 Cf O I Of 1 O O r- i V O O O W C A O 00 CA O CA O O 01 O O w i N 00 N 0 0 0 O w O w 0 W p. O O O O O O O OA i O 10 0 O L � C N dl N � FrS O CA C 1661810 July 12, 2010 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Golden Gate MSTU Project Status (G -32): ACTIVE — Water Symposium Collaboration — Median #21 05- 11 -10: Committee reviewed initial proposal for project and selected site in median #21 on Golden Gate Pkwy. 07- 11 -10: Staff reports that time frame for project is "2 years" for installation to remain installed. (G -31): ACTIVE — Hunter & Coronado Design; Curbing, Landscape, and Irrigation Project Name: (2009 -003P) Golden Gate Beautification MSTU — Landscape, Irrigation, Curbing Final Design. ( Coronado Parkway & Hunter Blvd.) 03- 09 -10: McGee 90% submittal under staff review; after comments will proceed to 100% /Bidding 04- 13 -10: Stormwater Dept. is adding details for an 'Alternate' which will provide for installation of new culverts along Hunter & Coronado. 5- 11 -10: Road & Bridge Dept. has proposed a $100,000 contribution to provide additional asphalt for project; Pathways Section has proposed an additional $100,000 contribution for improvements to sidewalks (re: ADA compliance); Staff review indicates 'collaboration' on this project will produce better results for the public. 5- 11 -10: 90% comments are to be provided to consultant at 5 -11 -10 meeting (copy of red -line plans) and comment sheets to be delivered to Mike McGee. 7- 11 -10: 100% plans are being circulated for staff review for ROW Permit. Public Meeting needs to be scheduled for public review. (G -25) ACTIVE — Golden Gate Master Plan — revision; (PO 4500100242; Work Order: TLO -MA- 3614- 07 -04; Original Contract Time -Line: NTP 12/8/2006 to Final Completion 12/30/2007; Original PO Amount: $4,800) 05- 11 -10: Final Submittal under review by staff. (G -26) ONGOING— Maintenance Contract 01- 06 -09: Committee approved at Jan. 6 2009; BCC Approved Jan. 27, 2009 meeting; Bid Documents and Bid Tabulation for Bid 09 -5153 Golden Gate MSTU /MSTD Maintenance; Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc. for $267,418.64 05- 11 -10: Staff has meeting scheduled to review contract on May 26, 2010 @ 9:00 am (G -29) ONGOING— Maintenance Consulting Contract 10 -9 -09: Notice to Proceed sent to JRL Design per BVO #08 -5060 —1 Annual Services for Landscape Architectural Maintenance Consulting Services for the Golden Gate MSTU 03- 09 -10: Currently a 'Stop Work Order' is in effect for JRL; BVO Selection is under review. 04- 13 -10: Proposal from JRL Landscape for review /approval by Committee (due to no quorum on 04 -13 -10 proposal is presented to Committee on 5 -11 -10 4 I ry r G OLDEN t, N .„ Aj TIN _ _, 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 c a SUMMARY OF MINUTES AND MOTIONS II. Approval of Agenda Add: LY. A. Water Symposium Richard Sims moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. IV. Approval of Minutes —May 11, 2010 Add: C. 2"d paragraph. - There was too much (OJT) on the job training. Change: C. Last paragraph - MSTU does not always have a landscape architect consultant. Change: X. 3rd paragraph — They offered a total concept design for any 100' area. No change required. The Committee requested transcriber review record minutes prior to approval. 1 1611 9410 V. Transportation Operations Report A. Budget — Staff distributed the Golden Gate Beautification MSTU Fund 153 Report dated July 12, 2010. (See attached) The Advisory Board will review on their own time. Richard Sims recommended Staff check with the Finance Department on when the Carry Forward Account will be adjusted. B. Project Manager Report Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed the Golden Gate MSTU Project Status Report dated July 12, 2010. (See attached) o (G -32) Water Symposium Collaboration — Median #21 The Staff asked the Committee for direction on their preference on landscaping median #21. A consensus was formed to landscape low and in front of the Golden Gate signage. Darryl Richard stated the Water Symposium Proposed Project requires landscaping design must remain for two years. Richard Sims stated the Committee would like to review design before approval. o (G -31) Hunter & Coronado Design — Curbing, Landscape and Irrigation Darryl Richard reported the 100% plans are under Staff review and the ROW Permit has been applied for. He recommended the MSTU schedule a public meeting. The Committee agreed to hold a public meeting on Monday, August 91h from 5:30 to 7:00 pm. VI. Transportation Maintenance Report - Hannula James Stephens reported • He will provide a proposal for Golden Gate Parkway to fill in where plants are missing. • They will be mulching Tropicana and doing summer trimming and mowing. The Committee expressed the following concerns: • Weeds are growing through the pavers on Tropicana. • The irrigation system is rusting the electrical equipment on the parkway and requested to redirect away from the equipment. • The Golden Gate sign on north end of 951 is made of wood and in order to prolong the life of the sign requested the sign not be watered. • Flora tan on Tropicana and Sunshine is dry. Many compliments were made on the recent services Hannula has provided. 2 VII. Landscape Architects Report — JRL Richard Tindell distributed and reviewed the Landscape Architect's Field Report. (See attached) • Overall site is looking good. • A dead foxtail and sabal palm on Golden Gate should be removed and not replaced. The area appears to be infected with a fungus that attacks palm and makes successful replacement doubtful. • Dead palmetto and juniper on Collier should be replaced. • Trim planting areas to meet County and FDOT standards. • Ligustrum tree on Golden Gate in the median from a previous accident needs to be removed and replaced. VIII. Landscape Architects Report — McGee & Associates — Addressed V. B. A. Hunter & Coronado Richard Sims requested Staff provide the 100% plans electronically or email prior to the public meeting. IX. Old Business A. Water Symposium - None. Richard Sims recommended the Staff move forward on purchasing a projector. X. New Business A. FPL Vertical Light Poles The Staff stated FPL does not deem the light poles as a safety hazard. The current project will correct this issue. XI. Public Comments None. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 P.M. Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee Richard Sims, Chatrman These minutes approved by the Committee /Board on as presented or amended The next meeting is scheduled for August 10, 2010 4:00 PM at Golden Gate Community Center - Naples, FL AUG 2 6 201 Fiala Halas Henning --__111- Coyle Coletta 164 1 BI'l Apri129, 2010 NIINUTES OF THE MEETING OF "FHE COLLIER COUNTY" HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, April 29, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F," 3'd floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Chairman: Mandel Gonzalez Vice- Chair: Mario Ortiz Alex Baldn David Correa Renato F. Fernandez Bill Forbes Valaree D. Maxwell Ileana Ramos Zetty Rivera ALSO PRESENT: Tatiana K. Gust, Staff Liaison Mist. Correa Dour ID Item t:� d-� 1611 B12 April 29, 2010 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Manuel Gonzalez at 6:00 PM and a Quorum was established. II. Approval Meeting Agenda Manuel Gonzalez corrected the agenda to clarify that there is only one Education report under "New Business" section. Renato Fernandez made a motion to approve the Meeting Agenda. Second by Valaree Maxwell. Motion carried 8 -0. Ill. Approval of Minutes tro►n ivlarch 25, 2010 Meeting: Manuel Gonzdlez corrected the meeting minutes to clarify that there is a repeated portion of the unemployment report and the name of the board member is "Ileana Ramos ", not "Ileana Gonzdlez ". Renato Fernandez made a motion to approve the Meeting minutes as amended. Second by Mario Ortiz. Motion carried 8 -0. IV. Public Speakers — Patricia McCartney did not assist to the meeting. V. Old Business - None VI. New Business a. Education — Typo error in Agenda b. Education Report by Valaree Maxwell Valaree provide the board members with a written report that shows that four of Collier County schools are among the lowest rating in the nation. The lowest performance schools are in Texas with the highest dropout rate. Florida is in second place. Ileana Ramos joined the meeting at 6:08. Naples Gulf Coast and Naples High School are among the four, and the main reason that kids are dropping out is drugs. Valaree remarked that there is a lot of bulling happening in the schools; even thru the social media such as Facebook. She presented a couple of examples that have happened locally in Naples, There was some discussion in regards to the percentage of dropout rate that is related to migrants, legal and non legal, and the reasons why these two States, Texas & Florida, are the ones with the highest dropout rate. Valaree also clarified that students that are transferred to other schools or obtain a GED are not considered dropout. 2 1611 B12 April 29, 2010 Manny requested if Valaree can get in touch with the people that worked in the report presented, and ask them what can be done to improve the situation'? What can the department of education do to improve the situation? c. Law Enforcement report by Manny Gonzalez i) Use of Force by Collier County Sheriff Deputy When the police react on the street there are not real guidelines. The use of force is simple without lethal weapon. Use of force with fire arms is thought in another class because it requires different training. Many times deputies encounter resistance to cooperate with the police force. This will automatically escalate to the next level of control. The policy is to focus more in the actions of resistance; the deputy is reacting to the type of resistance presented and how to control the situation. No matter what size the deputy is, he /she will have to take the proper actions to take control of the situation. He /she has to avoid to get hurt and don't let the resistant or any other get hurl. There are not constitutional requirements for the level of force used. The police have written policies, and the circumstances escalate in accordance with the resistance. The officer in the street is the one that makes the decision in how to proceed to take control of the situation. The police cannot stop anyone for any reason. The extent of the use of force is related to the situation of when the individual is encountered. Resistance could lead to arrest. Under this policy, deputies are not obligated to fight or wrestle or compete. They have to maintain the level of safety for all the people; they have to protect themselves and others. The following are levels of resistance: 1) Presence, stand in front of the deputy to create hostility 2) Passive, refuse to cooperate even if you have to carry _>> Swing at the police, this is a violation which is added to the original charges 4) Very aggressive 5) Highly aggressive The level of force used is directly related to the level of resistance. The deputy has to maintain control of the situation and make the decision of what to do when they stop 3 ib1 i b IF. April 29, 2010 a person. They have to consider what weapons the object being stopped has. Th'2 deputy has to make many decisions in a hurry. They have a systematic approact for check up when they stop a vehicle. ii) Office of Professional Responsibility Review Board (OPR) Many was asked to participate in the civilian review board to review cases resolved by the office of professional responsibilities. The OPR reviews everything that the sheriff has decided to do in his /her office; his /her ir-nmediate actions. 'l'hey nska_I Manny if he would represent HAAB and he accepted. He will be meeting with them on the first Thursday of each month. Usually there are 2 -3 cases reviewed per month. This gives the Hispanic community a voice, and presence to make sure that there are not discriminatory actions involved. You as a civilian can judge the actions of the sheriffs; this is unheard in the federal: court. In order to gain support from the community you must earn the trust of the community, and this approach certainly helps to do that. Manny did a study in what constitute improper actions while he was a fed, and what he found was that the highest the standards are, the lower the integrity issues are. If the deputy have probably cause they can do the search. VII. Member and Staff Comments Ms. Gust informed that there are two board members which terms are expiring in Jame 25`h, 2010. A letter was sent to both of them to reapply to the HAAB if they wish. Application must be submitted not later than May 6, 2010. There was also some discussion in regards of what is happening in Arizona and the consent to be stopped or searched. Mr. Gonzalez: It won't become law until August; however there are sonic constitutional issues. This law maybe a violation of the 24'x' amendment; maybe is also a violatior of the 4`h, 5"' & 6`" amendment. The 24°i amendment deals with the issue that all peopie in the country is entitled to the first 10 amendments. 4 1611-612 April 29, 2010 Manny presumed that the federal system will come up with something the t will serve for the new immigration law, which will help illegal immigrants to get citizenship. State law cannot supersede Federal law. Arizona is reacting to the lack of enforcement from the federal government. VIII. Public Comments None IX. Action Items(s) to the Board of County Commissioners (None) X. Next Meetings. May 27, 2010 David Correa made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:35. Second by Bill Forbes. Motion carried 9 -0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:47 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMiMIITTEE Manuel C. zalez, hai The Minutes were ap ed by the Board/Committee on CS =Z :7 _ as presented or as amended 5 MEMORANDUM 1611812 DATE: May 6, 2010 TO: Tatiana Gust FROM: Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners RE: Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board As you know, we currently have 2 vacancies on the above - referenced advisory committee. A press release was issued requesting citizens interested in serving on this committee to submit an application for consideration. I have attached the applications received for your review as follows: Zetty Yetny Rivera 39127 1h ST NW Naples, Florida 34120 David Correa 275 Napa Ridge Road Naples, Florida 34119 Please let me know, in writing, the recommendation for appointment of the advisory committee within the 41 day time -frame, and I will prepare an executive summary for the Board's consideration. Please include in your return memo the attendance records, for the last 2 years, of the applicants recommended for reappointment. Please categorize the applicants in areas of expertise. If you have any questions, please call me at 252 -8097. Thank you for your attention to this matter. IM Attachments 1611 612 Mitchelllan From: davcorr2 @aol.com ,ant: Monday, May 03, 2010 2 :23 PM ro: Mitchel Ilan Subject: New On -line Advisory Board Application Submitted Advisory Board Application Form Collier County Government 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 (239)252 -8606 Application was received on: 513/2010 2:23:07 PM. Name: Oavid Cone. Home Phone: 123 4 213 -006 Home Address :. 75 Napa Ridge Rd. City: Na Ic: Zip Code:, 311 i � Phone Num , ers L Fax: Business: Mail Address: d�tvcorr2'alaol. C701111 Board 1 Committee Applied for: I- lispanic Affairs Advisory Board Category: ItNot indicated W6i Place% etire How long hate you..Iived in Collier County;; ore than 15 Have you ever been convicted of any offense against the law? IN Pol Indicated Do you or your employer ao business with the County? ®o Nc,t Indicated NOTE: All advisory, board members must update their profile and notify the Board of County Commisstpnes in the event that their relationshichan p ges relating to me�riberslugs of '..z organizahons'that ay benefit them in 'the outcome bf advisory board recommendations ox they_:; enter 'into Contracts wit i tlic Cotii ty Would you and/or any_ organizations with you are affiliated benefit from decisions or 1611 recommendations made by this advisory board? No Not indicated Are you a registered voter in CollikConnty? es Do you currently liold public `office? MO Do y. ou currently or ever served on a.:Colliier County Board or Committee? ©e K .. r. :.4..f is panic Affairs Advisory Boaril 812 Please list your communi activities: Community Foundation of Collier County, Grant Committee Juvenile Justice Advisory Board of Collies ounry_ Board Membe l;ducationt L'ach.of Sci.N.Y.Inst.of Tech. Experience: NYS Supreme Court Court Clerk 25 years. Now retired -MAY -5 -2010 02:15P FROM:NEW 2393049399 Aavrsory noara Appucauon erorm Advisory Board Application Please fill out the following form to apply for a Collier County Board / Committee. Once you have filled out all the necessary fiends, click the button WOW. Name: JZOW Yetny Rlvera Please type yore now as it appears on your voters registration Home Address PM 27th ST NW City Zip Code Wrptea 134120 Home Phone Business Phone Pax: 239.910 -Fe 393045395 393049359 Ex 239-555 -5555 Ex. 239. 555 -5555 Ex 234 - 5555555 Important•. E-mail address is mquired to revive a copy of your appilmdom Email Address: corn Board or Committee Applied for FAAB Categw) (ifApplirti)lei 101 Indicated ix- Commission District, Dovelopor EnvironmentaliA Citizen At- Large, etc. Place of Employment: Plow Century Reath► Group Corp How long have you lived in Collier � County i!74 ; : I Have you been convicted of any offense against the taw? No Do you or your employer do business with the County? No Would you and/or any organizations with whom you arc affiliated benefit from decisions or recommendations made by this advisory board? No NOTE: AV advisory board members must update their Profile and notify the Board of County Commissioners in the event that their relationship changes relating to memberships of organizations that may benefit them in the outcome of advisory board recommendations or they enter into contracts with the County. Are you a registered voter in Collier County? Y"e 1 I U*V 1 VL L http: / /apps2.colUergov. net /web#pps/ vision Uc /advisoryfonnMefoult.aspx 5/5/2010 ,MAY -5 -2010 02:15P FROM:NEW 2393049399 Advisory tfoard Appucauon erorm Do you currently hold public office? I No Zj Do you now serve, or have you ever served on a. Collier County board or committee? Yes If yes, please list the boards/ committees: HAAS J Please list your community activities and positions held: Iimmokalee Sousing and ramily Services with Unity hurr-h. As a volunteer I serve food at Immohalee uadalupe Center to low income families every rirst iday of the month. Also our mission is to provide -cent, safe and affordable rental housing with supportive social and educational . services for farm J Example: Civic clubs, neighborhood associations, etc. Education: achelor susinass Administration. J Experience / Background From 2005 until the present I have been the owner broker of New Century Realty Group Corp. I have been a Realtor from 2002. J �.� Preview Any information provided to the Board of County Commissioners Office in connection with the Collier County website shall become a public record and available to the public in accordance with Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager to the Board of County Commissioners 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 You may also fax your application to (239) 252 -6406 1611. T0:2526 406 rugs: a P.0 2 va c. hUp: / /itpps2- wUiergov.net "bapps/ vision thce /advisoryform/Default.aspx 5/5/2010 0 Is 1611 X13 ,✓ AUG 12 2010 > -galas Henning April 15, 2009 Roard of County cornmis5ioners Coyle ColettA MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAUARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD Naples, Florida, April 15, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Historical/ Archaeological Preservation Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:15 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Community Development Services Division Conference room #610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Patricia Huff Pam Brown (absent) William Dempsey Sharon Kenny Elizabeth Perdichizzi Rich Taylor Craig Woodward (excused) ALSO PRESENT: Melissa Zone, Principal Planner, Zoning Dept. Cheri Rollins, Administrative Secretary Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Tony Ruberto, Parks & Recreation Alex Sulecki, Conservation Collier, Facilities Mgmt. Dept. Melissa Hennig, Conservation Collier Misc. Dab: O �c imm W Copies to April 15, 2009 • I. Roll Call/Attendance: Chairman Patty Huff called the meeting to order at 9:20 A.M. Roll Call was taken and a quorum established. Sandra Bottcher, from Q. Grady Minor was also present H. Addenda to the Agenda: ADD under item V Discussion of meeting date for May Melissa Zone Sharon Kenny moved to approve the Addenda to the Agenda. Second by Betsy PerdichizzL Carried unanimously, 5 -0. III. Approval of Agenda Betsy Perdichizzi moved to approve the revised agenda. Second by Sharon Kenny. Carried unanimously, 5-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: March 21, 2007 Sharon Kenny questioned the adequate addressing of Lois Bolin's concerns in the minutes and verbiage used. Melissa Zone explained the oral and written comments provided by Lois Bolin were included in the minutes and entered into the public record along with her handout, just as all handouts are. She provided a copy of those comments for those who were not in attendance at the March 25th meeting. Steve Williams clarified that Minutes of a meeting reflect what was said and done at a meeting. Minutes wording cannot be changed, but can be corrected at a future meeting upon verification of the recording of the meeting in question. Will Dempsey moved to approve the minutes of March 25, 2009 subject to the review of the recording for that date. Second by Rich Taylor. Carried unanimously, 5-0. V. Department of Zoning & Land Development Review Report Discussion of Addenda Item: Meeting in May Melissa Zone explained the current furlough program established by the County requires her to be off during the week of the regularly scheduled HAPB meeting (May 20). After discussion and checking the room availability it was agreed to move the next meeting date to May 27, 2009 at 9:15 AM Chairman Patty Huff spoke about the letters sent out to the various Museums and Historical Societies regarding the Lake Trafford canoes and asked this item be put on the May Agenda for further discussion. As a courtesy to the presenters, item VII. New Business was taken up before item . VI. Old Business. 1611 B13 April 15, 2009 VII. New Business A. Pepper Ranch presentation Alex Sulecki, Conservation Collier 2020 Coordinator and Facilitator of its 9- Member Board and Manager of several of its properties, presented an informative talk on the background, status and proposal for Historic Designation of Pepper Ranch. She stressed: • Conservation Collier's background, purpose and properties - (4,000 acres, 2 preserves) • Status of Pepper Ranch — 1,225 acres, 10 different types of habitats • Consideration for Historical Designation • Environmental, historical and cultural resource of Pepper Ranch a. Functioning Oil Wells b. Cattle leases c. Oil, Gas & Mineral Rights (except for 2 quarter sections) d. Watershed adjacent to Lake Trafford e. Developing and Managing Public Use and Access • Funding comes from ad valorem taxes ends in 2013 • Buildings, historical activity and archeological artifacts found in area • History of the Pepper Family Melissa Hennig commented that an Archaeological Survey of the bank area had been suggested and may be budgeted in the future. She stated 15% of monies received are set aside in a management fund for the 19 preserves managed by • Conservation Collier. Alex Sulecki noted portions of the property are to be open to the public and questioned the boundaries that may be placed on the management should there be a Historical Designation. The Ordinance states- within 90 days of acquiring a property they need to have an Interim Management Plan to prepare for a Long Term Management Plan due in 3 yrs. (The plan is reviewed and modified every five years.) Challenges mentioned: • Cattle leases in place • Cattle vats (toxic residue) - negotiations with private owners to remove and replace soil. • Segregate 12 acres from public use • Working with oil truck access and drilling operations. Two more properties (235 acres and 800 acres) were offered to Conservation Collier but funding opportunities have been suspended. Will Dempsey noted the Lodge and vats seemed like they would have significant historic and archeological value which could be investigated. Melissa Zone explained parts of the Ordinance describing the process of Designation, the requirements and criteria; even without a formal Historical Assessment. She noted the Grant options opened to sites designated as Historic. Pepper Ranch seemed to have those qualifications. 1611 B13 April 15, 2009 • Betsy Perdichizzi asked about a continuation of the levy to ad valorem tax to continue Conservation Collier. Alex Sulecki responded the aim is to get the word out to the public so they will want Conservation to continue. To that end a planned Sneak Peak Trail Hike on May 9. 2009 will take place from 9:00 AMto 1:00 PM. It is a 1.3 mile guided hike limited to 80 people (reservations needed). The lodge and portions of the Ranch will be available to the public. Alex Sulecki invited the HAPB members to visit the site and discuss the possibility of Historic Designation. The members were open to a site visit. Arrangements will be made with the property manager of Pepper Ranch. Betsy Perdichizzi suggested including a visit to the canoes at the same time. VI. Old Business: A. Mar -Good Park Melissa Zone provided a slide show of pictures taken of the site at the March 25th Meeting and tour. Tony Ruberto, Parks and Recreation Project Manager, explained the large building is slated as an interpretive center. Five of the cottages (the oldest structures) on Pettit Ave. are only ones to be saved. Plans are to refurbish and/or rebuild them as well as the old Cistern found on the property. This will be done over a five -year period. Until it is determined they are structurally sound the • public will be able to view them from the outside. Sandra Bottcher, Parks and Recreation, stated the rest of the buildings will be sold or moved depending on the amount of termite damage. She suggested holding off on the Historical Designation process until the soundness of the structures can be detenmined. She will provide HAPB members with updates on the progress made at what was once a 1920's fish camp. Chairman Patty Huff urged the Parks and Recreation representatives to use every effort to preserve and restore the "shotgun" style houses ( #'s 9 through 11). The Historical Assessment said it was worth saving # 6 if it was found to be the Johnson's original home. She inquired about obtaining a list of the items found at the site, especially in the large main building. She also asked that any artifacts that will not be displayed at the Mar -Good property be offered to the various museums (Collier, Everglades and Marco). Tony Ruberto stated some items are being stored at the Regional Park, some at Parks & Recreation and some will go to the museums. He suggested contacting Nancy Olson at Parks & Recreation regarding a detailed inventory of items found. He stated the other buildings not being considered for restoration can be bought by other groups or individuals and must be relocated. Melissa Zone announced, if everything comes together, all three designations will go to the Board together by June. 4 1611 R1 April 15, 2009 • VIII. Public Comments Chairman Patty Huff mentioned unfinished business items she would like included for the May Agenda: • The Markers • Historic booklets • Cities resolutions - regarding inter -local agreements • Naples Zoo items of interest to HAPB. • Encourage member attendance to comply with Ordinance requirements. Cheri Rollins will check with Pam Brown regarding her intentions to remain on the Board. Sharon Kenny left at 10:40 AM IX. Board Member Announcements Chairman Patty Huff asked for a motion to correct the spelling of Bula Mission as shown on page 3 of the Minutes of March 25, 2009. It went unnoticed at the time of the Approval of the Minutes. Betsy Perdichizzi moved to correct the spelling of Bula Mission as shown on page 3 of the Minutes previously approved Second by Rich Taylor. Carried unanimously, 4 -0 . Betsy Perdichizzi reported the funding to build the Living History Hall was in place, insuring the completion of all the buildings of the Marco Museum at the same time. She spoke of: • Mass campaign and letter writing to help with the building fund for City of Marco Museum. • $380,000 short of $4.5 million goal • Founders Circle closes May 15 (A donation of $1,000 over four -year period for recognition on the wall) • New owners of Marco Island Inn cooperating with preserving the property • April 15 @ 7PM - Meeting of Archaeological Society at Bonita Springs Community Center. Talk on Calusa artifacts as taken from Spanish archives. Chairman Patty Huff passed out flyers inviting everyone to the I Ph Birthday of the Museum of the Everglades celebration to be held on Saturday, April 25, 2009. The next scheduled meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 at 9:15AM. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 10:52 A.M. • 0 1611 B13 April 15, 2009 HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD Chairman, atty Hu These minutes approved by Board/Committee on 17-0 9 as presented or as amended RECEIVED 160 1 G 0�9 2010 IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T., d of County Commissioners ADVISORY COMMITTEE I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda February 24, 2010 AGENDA IV. Approval of Minutes — January 27, 2010 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget — Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Transportation Maintenance Report — CLM VII. Landscape Architect Report — JRL Design A. Proposal for Cross -Walks and Sightline Study B. Proposal for Annual Maintenance Consulting Services VIII. Community Redevelopment Agency IX. Code Enforcement Report — Weldon Walker X. Old Business XI. New Business A. FY — 2011 Budget XI1. Public Comment XIII. Adjournment The next meeting is March 24, 2010 One Stop Career Center 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, FL 34142 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta i0sc. Corres- Date: 09 la t) Item #:�J�. � J 16116 IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.Gido,cou q,9 Con ADVISORY COMMITTEE I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda March 24, 2010 AGENDA IV. Approval of Minutes — February 24, 2010 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget — Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard C. FY -2011 Budget VI. Transportation Maintenance Report — CLM VII. Landscape Architect Report — JRL Design VIII. Community Redevelopment Agency IX. Code Enforcement Report — Weldon Walker X. Old Business A. Storm Water XI. New Business XII. Public Comment XIII. Adjournment The next meeting is April 28, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. One Stop Career Center 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, FL 34142 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle _ Coletta Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: ;ps ?o: 1611 B14, IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE Fiala RED E IV E® May 26, 2010 Henning AUG 1 j 2919 Coyle AGENDA Coletta Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — April 28, 2010 V. Code Enforcement Report — Weldon Walker VI. Transportation Services Report A. Budget — Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VII. Transportation Maintenance Report — CLM VIII. Landscape Architect Report — JRL Design IX. Community Redevelopment Agency X. Old Business XI. New Business A. Water Symposium — Mike Ramsey XII. Public Comment XIII. Adjournment The next meeting is June 23, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. One Stop Career Center 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, FL 34142 Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: 161�` aV- iEt� 12i �o IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T. Uo.,,d of County Commissioners ADVISORY COMMITTEE I. Call Meeting to Order June 23, 2010 AGENDA II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - May 26, 2010 V. Code Enforcement Report - Weldon Walker VI. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard VII. Transportation Maintenance Report - CLM VIII. Landscape Architect Report - JRL Design IX. Community Redevelopment Agency X. Old Business A. Water Symposium B. Christmas Decorations XI. New Business XII. Public Comment XIII. Adjournment The next meeting is July 28, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. One Stop Career Center 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, FL 34142 Fiala L��' Halas Henning Coyle Coletta Misc. Cones: Date: Item #: 1611 B 14'1 � IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S. EG�� SORY COMMITTEE Fiala R Henning, p,UG p g 2010 4anuary 27, 2010 Coyle Board of Go'r W Commissioner Coletta Minutes I. The meeting was called to order by Cherryle Thomas at 4:30 p.m. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: William Deyo, Cherryle Thomas, Lucy Ortiz (Absent), Andrea Halman, Carrie Williams (Excused) County: Darryl Richard - Project Manger, Tessie Sillery- Operations Coordinator, Caroline Soto-Budget Analyst, Weldon Walker -Code Enforcement Others: Richard Tindell -JRL, Bradley Muckel- Immokalee CRA, Penny Phillippi- Immokalee CRA, Fred Thomas - Immokalee CRA, Darlene Lafferty -Kelly Services Darryl Richard announced Kelly Services took over the Secretarial Services Contract. III. Approval of Agenda Add. X. A. Colorado Avenue Sidewalk X. B. Update /mmokalee Stone Water Master Plan Andrea Halman moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes: October 28, 2009 Attendance Corrections: Richard Tindell -JRL was present John Ribes -JRL was not present Cherryle Thomas moved to approve the October 28, 2009 minutes as submitted. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget — Caroline Soto reviewed the following Budget items: (See attachments) • Available Improvements General $706,900.00 • P.O. paid to date $50,508.26 • Carry Forward Analysis B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard Caroline Soto reviewed Fund 111 MSTD General Fund Report. (See attached) Misc. orres: Date: Item #: Copies to: IBI44 Darryl Richard reported on the Project Status report: (IMM -17) Edgerrin James Sign • JRL provided sketches for the Edgerrin James Sign (See attached) • Conveyed questions by Traffic Operations - The Public Purpose of the sign - Has a Public review process been conducted Cherryle Thomas stated the request to recognize Edgerrin James was made by an individual (in the audience) at a public meeting. Penny Phillippi reported: • The sign was addressed at a Public meeting and it was concluded the sign is important to the Community • The CRA perceives the sign concept should encompass: - A Free standing sign - List Business in the Community - Install Signs at each entryway - Indicate Home of Seminole Casino After discussions it was agreed to hold a contest for the Sign Design at Immokalee High School. (IMM -16) Miles ahead Sign • Sign Project was reviewed (See attached) • Coordination with Engineering to meet FDOT guidelines for Sign installation • Signs cannot be installed on State Roads by Traffic Operations • 4 -6 Signs were requested • The State will be contacted for Sign installation on State Route 29 and State Route 82 Directional Sign requests were made by Fred Thomas: • Signs should indicate mileage to Immokalee • Left directional sign at Camp Keais Road • Left directional sign exiting Corkscrew Sanctuary Cherryle Thomas conveyed Public request to remove the white barriers on Main Street. Darryl Richard suggested including crosswalk corrections to JRL Scope of Services. Discussions ensued and it was agreed by the Committee the Pedestrian crossings are a safety issue. Darryl Richard reviewed JRL Proposal(s) RFP # 08 -5060 for Landscaping and Plantings: (See attached) • First Street - $6,514.00 • Hwy 29 - $5,450.00 • Suggested JRL submit a proposal to address crosswalks - Noted upgrading the sidewalks (by FDOT) is not planned 2 16 I -- I :4B 14 Cherryle Thomas requested in- ground lighting at Pedestrian crossings. William Deyo moved for Staff to (provide) a separate proposal (to address crosswalks.) Second by Andrea Haman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. Discussions took place concerning the type of Plantings that will be installed. Richard Tindell confirmed the Plantings installed will be environmentally suited for the area. William Deyo moved to approve Proposal(s) by JRL (for Landscape Design First St. from Main Street to Carver Street) in the amount of $6,514.00 and $5,450.00 (Planting Refurbishment for Main Street -Hwy 29: 1t Street — 9t' Street) Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. (IMM -11) Roadway Maintenance: BID #06 -4008 o Executive Summary will go for BCC approval February 9th 0 638 vendor notices were distributed o (2) Bids are applicable o CLM Bid $117,001.58 o Hannula Landscaping Bid $204,531.09 The Committee questioned the variance in monies on the Vendor Bid. Staff responded the CLM Bid is significantly lower due to competitive bidding. Additionally assurance was given (by Staff) that the quality of service is equivalent (between the two Vendors.) The Committee questioned the level of Service by CLM due to the delayed installation of seasonal Banners. Staff and JRL will review the Contract with the Vendor to ensure compliance. The Committee expressed frustration with delayed repairs on missing Banner arms and Poles. Staff replied repairs were hindered by slow production (by the Manufacturer.) Richard Tindell will contact vendors who have produced similar lighting. William Deyo moved to grant the Contract (Bid #09 -5264) to Florida Land Maintenance (d/b /a Commercial Land Maintenance) in the amount of $117,001.58. Second by Cherryle Thomas. Cherryle Thomas added the stipulation for Staff and JRL monitor CLM closely to guarantee Contract and deadline compliance. Motion carried unanimously. 2 -1. Andrea Halman voted no. VI. Transportation Maintenance Report-CLM -None VII. Landscape Architect Report -JRL Richard Tindell reviewed reports #15 & 16: (See attached) 3 1611 "B14 Report #15 • Photo #3 - Hanging Power Transformer is a safety issue • Photo #4 - Suggested upgrading the chain link fence at the Cemetery Discussions ensued on the Cemetery and it was perceived as a Historical site. It was determined Parks and Recreation is responsible for Cemetery Maintenance. The Committee was in agreement to mow the area, install a new fence, and prompt Parks and Recreation to assume Cemetery Maintenance. Darryl Richard suggested JRL add Fence options into their Scope of Service. William Deyo moved to request JRL include fence options (for the Cemetery) into the Proposal. Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. o Photo #5 - Unhealthy Crown of Thom - Auto damage • Photo #7 - Line of sight issue (difficult to see oncoming traffic) - Fading crosswalk lines are safety issue • Photo #8 - Overhead wires collide with Trees - Missing Banner arms Penny Phillippi announced the Bird of Paradise replaced Cornucopia as the Immokalee trademark. It was agreed the CRA and Immokalee MSTU will share cost for new Bird of Paradise Banners (estimate $3,000.00 per Committee.) Report #16 o Exposed Crown of Thom suffered from cold weather (both roadways) - Fungicide will be applied to prevent decay and plant loss o (1) large Flowering Tree (North end of Hwy 29) may not survive o Photos #1- 3 - Damaged Crown of Thom, Plumbago, and Bougainvillea (1St Street) o (2) Dead Foxtail Palms require removal (Main Street) o Photo #5 - Recommended cover water pipes during cold weather o Photo #6 - Tree is cracked (at Triangle) o Photo #7 - Crown of Thom require replacements o Photo #8 - Plumbago should recover from surface bum - Recommend to postpone feeding Plumbago after March 15th VIII. Code Enforcement Report - Weldon Walker -None IX. Old Business - None 4 16119144 X. New Business A. Colorado Avenue Sidewalk Darryl Richard reviewed 60% plans for installation of a new sidewalk on Colorado Avenue (9th Street to 1st Street) by Traffic Operations. (See attached) Penny Phillippi noted a Storm Water Retention pond will be installed in the same area as the sidewalk installation. After discussion it was concluded coordination with TECM is needed on installation for sidewalks and Retention Pond. Penny Phillippi expressed uncertainty on MSTU Ordinance interpretation. She perceived the objective of the Ordinance modification was to expand Boundaries and Responsibilities. Darryl Richard clarified the Boundary Expansion did not encompass expanding the MSTU "purpose." Andrea Halman moved to request (from the BCC) expanding the MSTU "Purpose" to include Storm Water, Drainage, and Sidewalks. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. B. Update Immokalee Storm Water Master Plan XI. Public Comment — None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:21 PM. Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Cherryle T o as, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on I Q as presented or amended _X The next meeting is February 24, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. One Stop Career Center 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, FL 34142 5 144, w Orr wo O w WW NM O r-t ri N ( � ".n�0000000 Cara 0�1 r� VO.00000 m G - E`•01 -0000 m fFZC r-1IMU'fOMM r1 W 01� W f CNN U A C) E+ r-1 UI O r- N M Nr♦C � NLnmw r11-1 O \ ••O n-W N N M M O ri 1p O w 117 ri V' lfl J.) 0%NLOM ODO 01 (.' O sT Otl)M rim A� w L G QHU A z w I - - -- =- --------- - - - - -- - -- z I r- u7ri rn W lwwr-N V`m C` C� 01011 sM w U M A Nr-ww rim O H �o �r rn ri -IM m M 0) N O r-1 ri ri O 4) i30 a� ro o A ' O 000 O O O r-1 � O 00000 O rt M En r1 O ' O 00000 O H a) O 0 0 0 0 0 O ..III !QA M .10000 N � OUMU N w Md•01mr-� -W W R1 �ZM fA�1 a W N ri I�1 �0r W '4 Az`° A NO MO a) o 00000 0 •ri U) 4) O 00000 O l-4 r4 a1HR� r4 4 M 0000 N 000 U �o cn a' of ui ri sr O r ri N r-i 41 4 —� - - - ?- ZU M- W?+ H >4 !nom z U r1 wz�oznx pq 0 o�UU w mE+ °0.1� aaw�vxiw O C., ril0W ix xEa-: xwSax 1 1-4 0WE MWXF- cn H001000r1 aD0 Ey 010100 O.-i e1 .-i y'0101�- Im�`MMM I Q H M N w b1 -! Wd•sPMMMtOtON WMMa'a`V`V•sr to ao�o�o�nl�� www pQI �o W gg Ga41 al • ,_< �a' 0 * ** W a�U 144, 16119141 Report Date: February 24, 2010 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Immokalee MSTU Project Status (RAM- 19) — ACTIVE- 1s' Street Irrigation: Refurbishment Project 9- 23 -09: Contract/Work Order is being processed anticipate Notice to Proceed after Oct. 1' 10- 12 -09: Notice to Proceed for PO 4500111227; JRL IRG DESIGN 1ST ST. 11- 17 -09: Design Review with JRL re: Project Specifications 01- 27 -10: Staff review and coordination continues with JRL on specifications for project. 02- 24 -10: JRL 30% submittal is pending delivery (IMM -18) — ACTIVE- Hwy 29 Irrigation: Refurbishment Project 9- 23 -09: JRL submittal of concept `draft' design complete; Contract/Work Order is being processed anticipate Notice to Proceed after Oct. 1" 10- 12 -09: Notice to Proceed PO 4500111225 JRL IRG DESIGN MAIN ST 10- 19 -09: Main Street Irrigation 75% submittal. Under review by staff. 11- 17 -09: Design Review with JRL re: Project Specifications 01- 27 -10: Staff review and coordination continues with JRL on specifications for project. 02- 24 -10: JRL 100% submittal is under review by staff (IMM -17) — ACTIVE- " Edgerrin James Sign" ;Request for Sign indicating "Welcome to Immokalee home of Edgerrin James" for motorist who are traveling to Immokalee 9- 23 -09: CRA to install `sign' and MSTU is to provide for landscaping or amenities around sign (could include lighting) 02- 24 -10: CRA to report on status of `High- school Children' producing sign concepts. (per suggestion made at 01 -27 -10 meeting) (11VIM -16) — ACTIVE- "Miles ahead" Sign; Request for Sign indicating "Miles ahead" to Immokalee for motorist who are traveling to Immokalee 02- 24 -10: Traffic Operations will installing quantity 6 miles ahead signs for Immokalee (IMM -15) — ACTIVE- ONGOING —LA Maintenance Consulting; Work Order for JRL; Landscape Architectural Services 02- 24 -10: Ongoing Services from JRL Design; new proposal for new annual contract. (1MM -11) — ACTIVE- ONGOING — Roadway Maintenance: BID #06 -4008 -- expires: March 10, 2010 " Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. /M.S.T.D. Roadway Grounds Maintenance'; Commercial Land Maintenance Contract 02- 24 -10: Ongoing Services from Commercial Land Maintenance 1611 B141 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Request for authorization to advertise a proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 92 -40, as amended, which created the Immokalee Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit, to expand its purpose to include " stormwater and drainage." OBJECTIVE: To obtain Board authorization to advertise a proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 92 -40, as amended, which created the Immokalee Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit, in order to expand its purpose to include "stormwater and drainage." CONSIDERATIONS: • On June 9, 2009 (item 16.B.7), the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approved Immokalee Stormwater Master Plan as commissioned by the Big Cypress Basin of South Florida Water Management District. • On October 8, 2009, the Immokalee MSTU and the ICRA had a joint workshop that included a discussion regarding expansion of the Immokalee MSTU's purpose per ordinance 92 -40. The expansion of the purpose of the MSTU was noted as essential to allow both the Immokalee CRA and Immokalee MSTU to collaborate jointly with Collier County Stormwater Department. The proposed expansion of the MSTU's "purpose" to include stormwater matters was well received by members of the public attending the workshop. Staff was directed to research the proposal of expansion of the MSTU's purpose. • On January 27, 2010, per staff recommendation, the Immokalee MSTU made a motion to expand the h=okalee MSTU purpose per Ordinance 92 -40 (as amended) to include "stormwater and drainage." Copies of the minutes of that meeting are attached in support of this request to bring forward the proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 92- 40. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no immediate fiscal impact with this executive summary. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office and is legally sufficient for Board action —SRT. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Impact associated with this Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners authorize the County Manager or his designee to advertise a proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 92 -60, as amended, to expand its purpose to include "stormwater and drainage." Prepared By: Darryl Richard, Project Manager – MSTUs, Alternative Transportation Modes Attachments: 1) Immokalee MSTU minutes 01 -27 -10 meeting; 2) Draft Ordinance 2010 - (proposed modification to ordinance 92 -40) ORDINANCE NO. 2010- 16 108 14 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 92-40, AS AMENDED, WHICH CREATED THE IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAKING UNIT IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING SECTION FIVE, "PURPOSE," TO INCLUDE SIDEWALKS, STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; CONFLICT AND SEVERARILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, on June 9, 1992, adopted Collier County Ordinance No. 92-40, which created the Immokalee Beautification Municipal Services Taxing Unit (the "MSTU'j, for the purpose of landscape beautification within the MSTU; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, on July 28, 2009, adopted Collier County Ordinance No. 2009-39, amending Ordinance No. 92-40 and expanding the boundaries of the MSTU; and WIIEREAS, on January 27, 2010, the MSTU Advisory Committee moved to include sidewalks, stormwater, and drainage improvements in Section Five, "Purpose," of Ordinance No. 9240,. as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that that Collier County Ordinance No. 9240, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION FIVE, PURPOSE. Section Five, "Purpose," of Collier County Ordinance No. 92-40, as amended, is hereby amended to include stormwater and drainage improvements, as follows: aE_CQN FIVE. P The Unit hereby established is for the purpose of doing all things reasonably necessary in connection with landscape beautification, including providing for pavement, curbs and sidewalks miens, installation of irrigation, stormwaxer and drainage facilities and related amenities. and associated landscaping improvements and maintenance thereofi as permitted by the responsible governmental agency for that portion of the road rights -of -way of SR 29 and CR 846 1 Words iJnderlivaal are added; Words Sumh 4hnz& are deleted. 1611 B144 (South 1' Street) which pass through the commercial/business areas in Immokalee, and certain other public areas as may be recommended by the Advisory Committee and/or determined by the Board of County Commissioners. SECTION TWO: INCUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or re- lettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changes to "section," "article," or any other appropriate word SECTION THREE: CONFLICT AND SEVERABRXff In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any court of competent jurisdiction holds any phrase or portion of the Ordinance invalid or unconstitutional, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION FOUR: EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: As Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Scott R. Teach Deputy County Attorney 2010. BOARD OF COUNTY CON IISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: FRED COYLE, CHAIRMAN 2 Words Underlined are added, Words gum& are deleted. 0 N E r W W a O 1611 n 141 D JR ' E S I G N STUDIOS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PUNNING DESIGN February 15, 2010 16,118144 Mr. Darryl Richard Immokalee Beautification, M.S.T.U. Collier County Traffic Operations & Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 South Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 Subject: Landscape Architecture & Landscape Maintenance(Main St (1st to 9th St.) & 1st St (Main St to Immokalee Casino))Services Contract RFP # 08 -5060, for Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. 2010 Dear Mr. Richard: As requested, the following is presented for your review and approval. The landscape architectural consulting services will be provided on a monthly basis generally coordinated with M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee monthly meetings. Limited design and or maintenance recommendation services will be quoted on a per project basis due to the unknown requirements of the work to be performed. JRL Design agrees to provide the following services. Landscape Architecture Consulting Services "Scope of Services" • Perform limited on -site observations of M.S.T.U. areas with the maintenance Contractor, Contract Manager and /or M.S.T.U. Committee representative for the purpose of quality assurance. • Review and comment on the "General Maintenance Report Sheets" which is required to be submitted by the Contractor with pay request submittals. • Provide written and/or oral comments and recommendations based upon on -site observations of the M.S.T.U. areas addressing: improvements, landscape plant and irrigation maintenance problems or deficiencies. • Comment on the performance of the maintenance or installation (if appropriate) Contractor in regards to the required contracted specifications. • Attend monthly M.S.T.U. meetings. • Submit monthly written report to M.S.T.U. & Collier County Alternative Transportation staff 3 days prior or as requested by Collier County Alternative Transportation to M.S.T.U. meeting. 405 Fili6 Avemn Sark, Suite S, Naples. Florida 34102 T 239.261.4007 F 23916(.5378 anad: d- desigaxom webs wwww jd- design.com 1611 B14 jRLD E S I G N STUDIOS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN Task II : Upon Reauest. Limited Refurbishment Desian Services (Estimated) • Provide limited (minor) refurbishment design services and observation of installation on an as requested basis, i.e. deliverables/functions might be as follows: 1. Diagrammatic area sketch planting plans with a recommended plant list. 2. Plant field locations by staking, flagging or paint marking. 3. Minor recommended design directive reports. 4. Estimated cost opinions of minor design installation. Upon request JRL will submit an estimated time input for deliverables requested and advise staff if time exceeds current work order. .. -. _r 1 a = .. _- : . • Provide assistance in developing the contract maintenance specifications. • Meet with Contract Manager to review and provide comments for annual maintenance specifications updating for contract and/or bidding purposes. • Attend maintenance pre -bid meetings and assist in preparing any necessary addendum. • Interact periodically with the Contract Manager. • Provide review and comment on: a. Bids and Committee agenda items. b. New products when requested by the Contractor and /or Contract Manager. c. Maintenance Contractor's ornamental spray program. COMPENSATION Task I: Monthly Consultation Based upon the general scope of services and past experience regarding landscape maintenance consulting services, JRL Design will provide monthly landscape Maintenance Consulting Services for a annual fee on an hourly basis as follows: 403 Fifth Avenue Sash, Suite 3, Naplm Florida 34102 T 239.261.4007 F 239.261.5378 email: stu&o@dd- design.eom webske:www jd- desiga.com East Mrs Cttrrerrt Rafe East. Cost ftndp WSW*x Landscape Archited es $128.00 $8,7M4.00 (Time & Materials) Landscape Architect 40 $120.00 $4.800.00 (Tune & Materials) Design Associate 24 $75.00 $1,800.00 (rime & Materials) Technical Staff 20 $62.00 $1240.00 Mine & Materials) AdminiaUative 40 355.00 52,200.00 (Time & MaMriab) Total $ 8,744.00 403 Fifth Avenue Sash, Suite 3, Naplm Florida 34102 T 239.261.4007 F 239.261.5378 email: stu&o@dd- design.eom webske:www jd- desiga.com JRL 2611 -g14 D E S I G N STUDIOS LANDSCAPE ARCHRECTURE PLANNING DESIGN Task 11: Uuon Reguest Limited Design Services (Limited to Minor Desion Direction Recommendations) The Limited Refurbishment Design Services fees will be billed as time and materials only upon written request for services. Due to the unknown requirements of the work to be performed, we would estimate the annual services to be as follows. Written authorization by County Project Manager is required prior to commencement of services outlined. Est Hrs Current Rate Est. Coat Principal/Senior Landscape Architect 24 $128.00 $3,072.00 (Time & Materials) Landscape Architect 28 $120.00 $3,380.00 (Time & Materials) Design Associate 20 $75.00 $1,500.00 (rime & Materials) Technical Staff 32 $82.00 $1,984.00 (Time & Materials) Task III: Upon Reauest Miscellaneous Services (Estimated) The miscellaneous services will be performed on an hourly basis and is estimated as follows. Prior written authorization County Project Manager is required prior to commencement of services outlined. Total Task I, 11, & III i11615118.00 Please submit this proposal for the execution of an official work order. We are looking forward to working with your department in improving, maintaining and enhancing the M.S.T.U.areas. John P. Ribes President JRL Design 405 Fiflb Avow Sowh. Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T 239.261.4007 F 239. 261.5378 email: suediO@jrl -de 5kP oom we6site:www jri-desiga oom Est Hrs Current Rats Est Cost Principal/Senior Landscape Archited 24 $128.00 $3,072.00 (Time & Materials) Landscape Architect 16 $120.00 $t,920.00 (rime & Materials) Design Associate 12 $75.00 $900.00 (Tine & Materiels) Technical Staff a $62.00 $496.00 (Time & Materiab) Administrative 12 $55.00 sew.66 & Materials ota Total Task I, 11, & III i11615118.00 Please submit this proposal for the execution of an official work order. We are looking forward to working with your department in improving, maintaining and enhancing the M.S.T.U.areas. John P. Ribes President JRL Design 405 Fiflb Avow Sowh. Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T 239.261.4007 F 239. 261.5378 email: suediO@jrl -de 5kP oom we6site:www jri-desiga oom JR] G S T U D I O S LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN February 18th, 2010 Mr. Darryl Richard, Immokalee Beautification, M.S.T.U. Collier County Traffic Operations & Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 16119144 Subject: Main Street Improvements: Intersections/ corner planters/ safety bollard barriers/ site line compliance study Services Contract RFP # 08 -5060, for Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. Dear Mr. Richard, As requested, the following is presented for your review and approval. The landscape architectural consulting services will provide a design to improve the intersections lines of sight in coordination with the M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee and your office. Design will incorporate site analysis, preliminary design, construction documents (reviews @ 30 %, 60 %, & 90 %) and construction engineering inspections. JRL Design Studios agrees to provide the following services. Landscape Architecture Consulting Services "Scope of Services" Task 1 : Site Inventory & Analysis • An on -site documentation coordination with RWA/Staff of the existing conditions including verifications of planting, curbing, bollards, drainage, planters and sight line compliance study. • Preparation of an accurate base map adequate for design purposes. *Staff will obtain survey (RWA to provide survey under separate annual contract). (Include 1 meeting with staff of 1 hour) Task 2 : Preliminary Concept Design (for Review) • A conceptual sketch outlining an improvement to the intersections & corners incorporating removal of bollards, planting modifications, curbs & drainage revisions, street crossing safety additions and verification on line of sight compliance. • Engineering Plan indicating sightline requirements per current FDOT Sightline standards with itemized list of current installations in violation of FDOT Standards (to be signed and sealed by Professional Engineer) (Include 1 meeting with staff of 2 hours) Task 3 : Construction Documents (based on approval of conceptual design) • Prepare Construction documents for Main Street Intersections & Street Crossing Improvements. Incorporating removal and /or demolition of existing structures, new curbing, drainage, crossings, planters, and irrigation associated with design improvements. 405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 - F. 239.261.5378 - Toll Free 888.261.4007 email: studio @jrl- design.com website: www.jd- design.com JR I G N S T U D I O S LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 1611 "B141 • Plans prepared in accordance with Current FDOT Standards & Guidelines • Coordination with FDOT in plan review and approval; "Engineer Sub - Consultant" required for signing and sealing 'Engineering Plans' for the cross -walk • Layout Plans and details • Related short form specifications. • Reviews at 30 %, 60 %, and 90% completion (Includes 2 — staff meetings at 2 Hours) Task 4: Bidding Assistance • Provide assistance in developing specifications and a bid submittal package. • Attend Pre -bid conference • Prepare RFI responses and assist in submittal of necessary addendums. • Assist in Bid Evaluation Task 5 : Construction Administration • Attend pre construction conference • Review and respond to RFI's, shop drawings, samples, tests & requisitions of payment. • Conduct construction engineering on site inspections (CEI's) (limited to 6 of 4 hour durations) • Conduct & submit certification of substantial completion. • Conduct report on final acceptance recommendations. • Assist in project close -out. (Does not include as built documentation & plans) COMPENSATION Task 1 : Inventory & Analysis Based upon the scope of services outlined, JRL Design Studios will provide the consulting services as follows: Task 2 : Preliminary Concept Design Est. Hrs Current Rate Est. Cost Professional Engineer 2 $140.00 $ 280.00 IT & M) Engineer 2 $130.00 $ 260.00 IT & M) Principal /Senior Landscape Architect 16 $128.00 $2,048.00 IT & M) Landscape Architect 4 $120.00 $ 480.00 IT & M) Design Associate 8 $ 75.00 $ 600.00 IT & M) Technical Staff 18 $ 62.00 $1,116.00 IT & M) Administrative 4 $ 55.00 $ 220.00 IT & M) Total $5,004.00 Task 2 : Preliminary Concept Design 405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 - F. 239.261.5378 - Toll Free 888.261.4007 email: studio@jrl- design.com website: www.jd- design.com Est. Hrs Current Rate Est. Cost Professional Engineer 10 $140.00 $1,400.00 (T & M) Principal /Senior Landscape Architect 8 $128.00 $1,024.00 IT & M) Landscape Architect 16 $120.00 $1,920.00 IT & M) Design Associate 8 $ 75.00 $ 600.00 IT & M) Technical Staff 16 $ 62.00 $ 992.00 IT & M) Administrative 4 $ 55.00 $ 220.00 (T & M) Total $4,756.00 405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 - F. 239.261.5378 - Toll Free 888.261.4007 email: studio@jrl- design.com website: www.jd- design.com 1611 n B1 D E S I G S jR] T U D I O S LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN Task 3: Construction Documents (Reviews al 30 %. 60% & 90 %) Task 4: Bidding Assistance Est. Hrs Current Rate Est. Cost Professional Engineer 12 $140.00 $1,680.00 (T & M) Engineer 4 $130.00 $ 520.00 (T & M) Principal /Senior Landscape Architect 16 $128.00 $2,048.00 (T & M) Landscape Architect 20 $120.00 $2,400.00 (T & M) Design Associate 24 $ 75.00 $1,800.00 (T & M) Technical Staff 40 $ 62.00 $2,480.00 IT & M) Administrative 12 $ 55.00 $ 660.00 IT & M) Total $11,588.00 Task 4: Bidding Assistance Task 6 : Construction Administration (est. 3 -4 months construction schedule) Est. Hrs Current Rate Est. Cost Professional Engineer 4 $140.00 $ 560.00 IT & M) Principal /Senior Landscape Architect 12 $128.00 $1,536.00 IT & M) Landscape Architect 8 $120.00 $ 960.00 IT & M) Design Associate - $ 75.00 $ 0.00 IT & M) Technical Staff - $ 62.00 $ 0.00 IT & M) Administrative 10 $ 55.00 $ 550.00 IT & M) Total 16 $ 55.00 $3,606.00 Task 6 : Construction Administration (est. 3 -4 months construction schedule) Total of Task 1 - 5 $34,382.00 Please submit this proposal for the execution of an official work order. We are looking forward to working with your department in improving, maintaining and enhancing the M.S.T.U. areas. Respectfully Submitted, John P. Ribes, FASLA President of JRL Design Studios, LLC 405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 - F. 239.261.5378 - Toll Free 888.261.4007 email: studio @jrl- design.com website: www.jri- design.com Est. Hrs Current Rate Est. Cost Professional Engineer 12 $140.00 $1,680.00 IT & M) Engineer 6 $130.00 $ 780.00 IT & M) Principal /Senior Landscape Architect 24 $128.00 $3,072.00 IT & M) Landscape Architect 16 $120.00 $1,920.00 (T & M) Design Associate 8 $ 75.00 $ 600.00 IT & M) Technical Staff 8 $ 62.00 $ 496.00 IT & M) Administrative 16 $ 55.00 $ 880.00 IT & M) Total $9,428.00 Total of Task 1 - 5 $34,382.00 Please submit this proposal for the execution of an official work order. We are looking forward to working with your department in improving, maintaining and enhancing the M.S.T.U. areas. Respectfully Submitted, John P. Ribes, FASLA President of JRL Design Studios, LLC 405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 - F. 239.261.5378 - Toll Free 888.261.4007 email: studio @jrl- design.com website: www.jri- design.com 1611814 ' DIVA INC. CONSULTING Z t I I1 1 • Planning • Visualization • Civil Engineering • Surveying & Mapping February 23, 2010 Darryl Richard Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Transportation Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Professional Service Proposal for Immokalee Site Line Surveys (RWA, Inc. File No. 100042.00.00) Dear Darryl, RWA, Inc. is pleased to submit the following proposal for land surveying services associated with the development of the subject project. Outlined below is our understanding of the project profile and the assumptions we have used to develop our scope and associated fees in response to your request for proposal. With the issue being Site Lines at intersections and along roadway, I have added to the Survey, an element that includes the height, and size of certain features, in order to determine potentially problematic areas. The deliverable will be a typical Topographic and Right of Way Survey, and the vertical elevation will be noted on features such as shrubs, trash cans, planters, benches and any other element that may impede sight lines. We shall also provide a CADD file, with photographs embedded into the file in order to provide a visual component. Copies of the photos will be provided as well. PROJECT PROFILE • Collier County intends to review possible line of site problems, and prepare for improvements to the roadways in Immokalee, Florida. • The subject property is generally located in Sections 3, 4, 9 and 10, Township 47 South, Range 26 East, Collier, Florida. • The projects will be surveyed as one project. • SR 29 (Main Street) for 100 feet east of I" Street, west to 100 feet west of 90, Street, approximately 3,100 linear feet. • 1St Street from SR 29 (Main Street) south to the Southern Property line of the Seminole Gaming Casino, approximately 400 feet south of Carver, or 3,500 linear feet. • The Client desires to retain the services of RWA, Inc. (Consultant) and proceed with the Project as described within this proposal. 1611 B144 PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS • The Client will make available all pertinent information, permits, and documents associated with the required Project, including, but not limited to, existing surveys, title policies and engineering and structural plans in Auto CADD electronic format. • Existing easements of record within the property boundaries will not need to be vacated and/or modified. These easements if applicable shall not create any issues during design, permitting or construction phases of this project. • The typical cross section profile for this project will be from the centerline of the existing roadway to + 10' outside of the right -of -way. The exception being buildings or larger signage. These features will be located up to 25' outside of the Right of Way. • This proposal includes performing all services described within on a one -time basis. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.0 General Consultation 1.1. Attend one (1) coordination meeting, per area, on site, to insure the RWA project manager fully understands the intentions of Collier Counties Project Manager. 2.0 Control Survey, Right of Way Determination, Topographic Survey 2.1. Reproduce the recorded right -of -way and baseline information. Right -of -way shall include the intersecting roads within the project limits. The right-of-way information shall be labeled, including the dates, bearings and distances. In addition the following information shall be noted: a. Horizontal datum — tied into the Florida State Plan Coordinate System, NAD 1983/1999 Adjustment. RWA will provide project control network sheets for the survey baseline control points instead of setting reference points. b. Vertical datum (benchmarks) — NAVD 88, set two permanent per project area. c. Existing layout shall be tied to the existing right -of -way. d. Locate existing visible property markers (e.g. — iron pipe, concrete monuments or iron pins) e. Tie buildings located within the proposed limits of the project to the existing right -of -way. 2.2. Property ownership shall be determined from Collier County records and incorporated into the plan drawings and files. Property lines do not need to be surveyed, but shall be verified utilizing any visible property markers, wherever possible. Consultant shall utilize the Collier County GIS website to obtain property ownership information. RWA shall illustrate Folio Numbers and recording information on the Survey, and shall be current as of the date of the Survey. Page 2 of 6 W:\2010\100042.00.PO Immokalee Site line \00\2010- 02- 24 -PSA (0001- 0006).doc 6610 Willow Park Drive Naples, FL 34109 * 239 -597 -0575' www.consult- nva.com 1611 914--4 2. 3. Provide a detailed topographic survey of the proposed project land limits as described herein. All work shall be certified by a professionally registered surveyor in the state of Florida. 2.4. Detail information - Survey shall include physical features, which accurately depict the existing condition of the project area. The information shall include, but is not limited to, the following: a. Roadway Pavement b. Driveways and Parking Area — note limits within survey coverage and type of pavement or surface. c. Curbing, edging, medians and barriers — note limits and type. d. Sidewalks, walkways and handicap ramps — note limits and type. e. Wall information (type, height and thickness), step /stair information (type, top step elevations, bottom elevations, number of rises). f. Horizontal and vertical information will be gathered on potential obstruction such as garbage cans (height and diameter), benches, planters (height and foot print), shrubs (height and diameter), median trees with a caliper of 2" or greater. Data depicting crown diameter and height above grade will be noted on trees other than palms. g. Guard rail — note limits and type. h. Utility Structures • Sanitary sewer- ➢ Manholes — rim elevations • Drain System > Catch Basins - grate elevation > Manholes — rim elevation Above Ground Visible Utility Locations > Utility lines - size, type, for water, reclaimed water, gas, telephone, sewer, electric and CATV. > Hydrants and water valves. > Hand holes and pull boxes. > Gas valves. > Telephone and electric manholes. > Utility and light poles and guy wires, including overhead wires. > Any other public or private utility structure or casting located within the defined limits of survey. i. Collect spot elevations at regular intervals of 100' maximum (consistent with baseline stations, if possible) and at critical locations, including top and bottom of curb, centerline grades, back of sidewalks and at changes in slopes. Elevations to be given on the center of all existing driveways. Page 3 of 6 W;\2010\100042.00.P01mmokalee Site line \00\2010 -02- 24 -PSA (0001- 0006).doc 6610 Willow Park Drive Naples, FL 34109 * 239 -597 -0575 * www.consult- nva.com 161`1 T14 Pavement markings, including lane use and shoulder width, crosswalks and stop bars. k. Traffic /road signs- note direction in which signs face, material type (wood or aluminum) legend and wording, including those mounted on utility poles, signal posts and bridges. 1. Traffic signal equipment. Include if applicable: • Control cabinets, including height • Mast arms, including width • Span wires • Signal posts • Pedestrian signals, push buttons, cross walks, pull boxes 3.0 Supplemental Revisions 3.1. Provide additional surveying services as requested by the project manager on an as needed basis in the event that additional information is warranted after the Survey is complete. 4.0 Reimbursable Expenses 4.1. Expenses for blueprints, reproduction services, overnight or express delivery services, and vehicle mileage, shall be reimbursable to RWA, Inc. DELIVERABLES The final products (topographic and control surveys) shall be delivered in AutoCAD (Version 2010).DWG Format, and in a hard -copy print. The survey control points will be provided in an ASCII file format and shall have a point number, elevation, and description. • All field survey activities shall be performed under the direct supervision of a Professional Surveyor & Mapper licensed and in good standing with the State of Florida and shall adhere to the State of Florida Minimum Technical Standards in 61G17 -6, FAC. • The units of measurement for this project shall be in US Survey feet. Daily information shall be recorded in hard bond field book format and/or electronic data collector. All level and horizontal traverse networks shall be closed to the starting point and the errors recorded. If the errors are above the standards outlined 61G17 -6.003 FAC (p) l., 2., a, b. (1 foot in 10,000 feet), the survey shall re -run the horizontal and vertical traverses until the errors are eliminated within the acceptable range. Field notes shall include: the date, names of the crew, weather conditions and collected survey data information. Page 4 of 6 W:12010 \I00042.00.P0 Immokalee Site line \00\2010- 02- 24 -PSA (0001- 0006).doc 6610 Willow Park Drive Naples, FL 34109 * 239 -597 -0575 * www.consult -r a.co, ni 1611 B144 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FEES The professional service fee estimates for the associated scope of services are listed below. Scone of Services, SR 29 (Main Street) 1.0 General Consultation 2.0 Survey 3.0 Supplemental Revision 4.0 Reimbursable Expenses Scope of Services, 1" Survey 1.0 General Consultation 2.0 Survey 3.0 Supplemental Revision 4.0 Reimbursable Expenses Excluded Services Fee Tyne $ 500.00 T/M/E $16,500.00 Fixed $ 3.000.00 T/M /E Total $20,000.00 Total $22,500.00 $ 500.00 T/M/E Fee Tyne $ 500.00 T/M/E $19,000.00 Fixed $3,000.00 T/M/E Total $22,500.00 $ 500.00 T/M/E The professional services to be provided by the Consultant are limited to those described in the Scope of Services. All other services are specifically excluded. Listed below are excluded services that may be required or desired by the Client: • Conservation Easement Descriptions • Special Purpose Surveys and Sketches • Jurisdictional Location • Easement Vacations • FEMA Elevation Certificates • Final Acceptance and Certifications Page 5 of 6 WA2010 \100042.00.PO Immokalee Site line \00\2010 -02 24-PSA (000 1 -0006).doc 6610 Willow Part: Drive Napies, FL 34109 * 239 -597 -0575 * www.consull- rwa.com 16118147 ACCEPTANCE AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED Period for Acceptance This Proposal /Agreement is open for acceptance by Client through March 25, 2010. After the acceptance date, the proposal may be withdrawn or subject to modification by RWA, Inc. Acceptance If this Proposal/Agreement satisfactorily sets forth Client's entire understanding of the agreement, please sign one copy of this agreement in the space provided and return it to RWA, Inc. as authorization to proceed with the work. Owner /Client Authorization I hereby certify that the undersigned is the Agent to the Owner of the property that is the subject of this proposal. I hereby certify that the undersigned has the authorizing authority to execute this contract for professional services. I hereby authorize the performance of the services as described herein and agree to pay the charges resulting thereby as identified above in accordance with the attached Standard Business Terms and Conditions and Rate Code and Fee Schedule of RWA, Inc. Accepted this day of Please Print Name For: Collier County 2010. Title Thank you for the opportunity to submit this professional service proposal. Please call if you have any questions. We will look forward to hearing back from you soon. Sincerely, Michael Ward, PSM Project Manager Encl.: Collier County Rate Codes RWA Standard Business Terms and Conditions Billing Address Information Page 6 of 6 W:\2010 \100042.00.P0 Immokalee Site line \00 6610 Willow Park Drive Naples, FL 34109 * 239 -597 -0575 * www.coii ult- nva.com N (D 0 Z o � r N CO) CM 2 ?-% w W J � LLB. 161:.1 '814 I M N V.- O ti N► O c o N � M 0 0 00 CA 0 0 0 0 M O CD .- N tf) O 0 w c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O to co O N O N m C (o co M f- N O O to N M to CD r- 0) CD M M 00 CD O CD - N N O IW CD to V- V ti L-Cov d N to N d� to N � N N M to Eli fA to f!i l!i vi Ef3 tYi EA 6H 6H t!i � H fA ER EA EA EA EA a-+ O v O O O O O O O O N 00 O to 0 0 O O O O O O M O E- O v O C) O CO N N O O O to c,:) 00 N N c7 00 O N O O (c,:) O N M 00 r- T- 0) to to E N to O O to N N 00 T- E U3, bc.� 0131 6%1 ul) 60.1 U9. V1, I V), 091 U1.1 el.%- V3, ud ul.� 1 01), U.) ul), U31, W., ° y�y yy� U CL U E to O O O O O O > .. V CO CO fn V) N d! V � N W m tea t`a m U) � N m C) O N O 7 7 0 L O O E c� O zz a a a a a�Na�i - c cm G. E C c co 0 a 2` 2 m co m e u�oi C 'Z Q Q Q Q V O O 7 7 Cl) (1) w •� N 3 m to to ro ro a�i ° 0 0 �ah.� C v ° `c°, `�° c�`�° oU ��U (D �' L L t N O C N d) �� c°owU)'o d) �a-U) �F- HU �f°-� V ti m ' L cm 0 a 0 0 0 to Q Q Q Q O Q Q Q Q Q O O O O CV) Q ti O' Q Q Z z z z M z z z z z tO to to tO z M Q g� z z Q co ob ob ob ob d to Y 0 0 Co 0 0 0 060 `o 3 O O O O O to f` 1n M N ►l N O 1- CD � CO O to O CD O N N IW V M r- O � v 1- O CO a O M O to t'M N N v- to CD O to O :ft Cr) M M C V N ar- N to ti LO N N M N O OV-T-r- C V- r- r- V- a � •- r- r- � v � Z CL O O O ro o o C) -- O Co O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 aoaa.0000 O00000000 0 to to to to to to to to to to LO to w to to to v v v � v v v v �r v d• v� v v � C C C O O L _ O a U O J {� g O O E Mv ? d) O m �1) to C O 0 Co m J J boo m �., Y N V ';y is is m m Q1 p C C C C Q U _ H m >1 L N E ) E� O 0 to o to o . � _ � m � � N � ro u, a�i 0 c tQ U O U O U N LL O LL O U- E E C C W W a' W y N to > I M N V.- O ti N► th a O � M CA O M N CL DD c 0 CO) t 00 N m C r 11f O O` O U. C c� � 4 ri � C th O � M r 11f O O` O U. C c� � 4 ri � C 0 0 N N W N Q Z Y � O L i c� y G LL 1611 +B14 _M O n O to t0 t0 O A O O O O O O p O O O t0 O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O h h N in O O p O fp w O M A r 0 O 0 O O) N l0 O M CO aD co fD C O C� O� O O O N A A A} O O O Ol O� O O N Q C7 b O N fn O f0 (D C b O O O C O O C O O O O O Oi (�pp w co tV O O O O N O O r N O co f0 O1 - 0� 0) fA N O N N N d 00 N N V t0 in 10 O N a C O N 'w F V! V3, V! N V) N V> .1 .1 .1 N f• a0 O n O Ci b tp r N r t0 O O co O O O O O O O N O CO f0 10 N O O v S N N (O f19 "a A M! M . S N �p O M f10 r w f7p CD pp a b O O! O O N M N O 0 N tl 0 0 0 W N Go a0 m O V fa N O O pp O M m fn W fip A N N N N N V M M 't' O t'' A ^ t` N A N _ In V A tl r 9 f Q C W V! Vf W, to V) N V) V! di GF V! N j V). V! G* to V). 01 V! V! V! V! fa d! V) V1, N N N d) N V! 6'%j N d! O 0 O M OVf V O O O O O O V A w C CD tD O co PO 0 a'SF N N c0 O CO v E E 0 V 14* Vi Vl V) V! W. 10 11 &,1611 w N fit fA fff to EA � . of E» ffl E0 fA Uf E& V! %0 N N N V) d N V) ftj to O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C. O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O S O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 p 0 O 0 O 0 "- O O fl) p O 11! 6 0 fA QO 0 O O 0 N A A A O O O a O RR7 01 O O O fA O O O a O O O C O a O a O C O 0; A 0 0 pp 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 8 p 0 O 0 p 0 O) VO _V O f0 O ' -. ,. OV qp M O M O fp tD fA N O O V O h �Op> O AA S A N A N V N 0 r O O N O' N C 0 V m M t19 tD r n A V) V3. FA 691 V) 401 Vi V) 6% Eel N 40101 V) 6%1 V) d) V! Vf V) V! V) 0% V! V! dA N V N V! V! N .1 N w 0 O U U ¢ w O m to W w w z cr W J J Q. w> w W O c qa_0 m � Q w 0 zmwa qa O z LLI �t-� U (L wZ'3IX m' Oda Z Z� =pew W O �O z F- LIJ o ¢ U' ~ ¢, (r w to w Z o_ U p zw o: J ¢� w, Z Wz tom w ow w z rn �'zc9z w�zF- �c�� ° >o w w�UC9�Z{- wo O w a g zW a o z a�� 0 Cr oo °� z > O O ¢ W U +�s tL o LL� o�� m L9 zc90, w� z f- D to to zzo z 0 ¢ Q w t~m 0' O QU' a ZZ Q m zg 2 0 O W ix Ow >> x (A w o w ww o: w LL LL W w W W U °°mzY U U' U' a O Z j-j �- H >> M ao ¢ x w 2 W N z M z o x a fn Quo- fA :..,,. z wv z w W x Z x U Z H} zw m Z 0 ¢ 0 N w w ,Wi � w f- LL w > W �ii 11 9 ¢ ¢ c7 w z 4a t7 z i7 z x f y Qd �- z -j x t� z w v w x W x w a a Z U' o Q) a Z 4a w to W m U o LL z? 1- U U z l- w w z O 1- w Ir z o 0 �' d_3 F- O �- O o. o ¢ U F- > m > m F- w w w: w r N -1 V tl m A b -191 r N A 'ff tl tl A O A O r N A fi tl. m A --1 A O r N A� tl tl A b r r r r ' r r r r N N. N. N�. N N N N N M h !+! M 1611B144 ✓ IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE February 24, 2010 Minutes I. The meeting was called to order by Cherryle Thomas at 4:30 p.m. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: William Deyo (Excused), Cherryle Thomas, Lucy Ortiz, Andrea Halman, Carrie Williams County: Darryl Richard — Project Manger, Caroline Soto — Budget Analyst, Brandy Otero - Project Manager Immokalee Stormwater, Jerry Kurtz - Stormwater Dept. Others: Richard Tindell —JRL, Jim Fritchey -CLM, Bradley Muckel - Immokalee CRA, Penny Phillippi- Immokalee CRA, Fred Thomas - Immokalee CRA, Christie Betancourt- Immokalee CRA, Darlene Lafferty-Kelly Services III. Approval of Agenda Add: V. C. Storm Water Sequence Changes to Agenda items: V.B. Storm Water V. C. Project Manager Report -Darryl Richard Andrea Haman moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Cherryle Thomas. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: January 27, 2010 Change: Il. Lucy Ortiz was excused Andrea Halman moved to approve the January 27, 2010 minutes as amended. Second by Carrie Williams. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget — Caroline Soto reviewed the following Budget items: (See attachments) o Collected Ad Valorem Tax $204,280.87 B. Stormwater Brandy Otero reported Stormwater is partnering with Immokalee CRA to produce a supplement to the Stormwater Master Plan and Design the first Phase of Projects. She gave the following Project(s) updates: 1611 B14 C. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard Darryl Richard gave the following additional information: (See attached) (IMM -19) 1St Street Irrigation: Refurbishment Project 0 60% Plans were submitted today by JRL o Plans are under review by Staff (IMM -16) Miles Ahead Sign o (6) signs will be installed within 2 weeks o Locates must be completed prior to installation o List of locations will be provided at the March 24, 2010 meeting The CRA Annual Report 2009 was distributed for Committee review of the Bird of Paradise image for Immokalee Beautification Banners and Signage. (See attached) Discussion took place on the CRA purchasing new Immokalee Banners with the Bird of Paradise Trademark. Carried Williams moved (for Staff) to send a letter to the CRA Board requesting a Grant to purchase Banners for Immokalee Beautification. Second by Lucy Ortiz. A title correction for the CRA Board was requested by Fred Thomas The motion was amended to read. Carrie Williams moved (for Staff) to send a letter to the CRA "Advisory" Board requesting a Grant to purchase Banners with the Immokalee Florida in the 21st Century (Trademark) aka Bird of Paradise for Immokalee beautification. Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Darryl Richard reviewed (2) Proposals by JRL Design. (See attached) Continuation of Maintenance Consulting Services (next Fiscal Year) • Total Proposal $36,588.00 • Base Level of Services $18,744.00 Lucy Ortiz moved to approve Proposals from JRL (in the amount ot) $36,588.00. Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Main Street Improvements • Collaborate with FDOT on crosswalk aesthetics and site line issues • Total Proposal $34,382.00 • Staff will request Construction monies from FDOT Andrea Halman moved to approve $34,382.00 for the Crosswalk Study and Design. Second by Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. 3 1611 BI 4 1 Darryl Richard reviewed RWA Proposal to Survey 1St Street and Main Street: (See attached) • Vertical elements will be located • Topographical points will be included • Main street $20,500.00 • Total Proposal $43,500.00 Carrie Williams suggested partnering with the CRA on the Survey cost. Discussion ensued concerning duplication of services as a Survey may be included in the RFP for the Stormwater Master Plan. Staff will review the RFP to determine if Surveying is included the Scope of Services. Carrie Williams moved to approve the RWA Proposal ($43,500.00) contingent on double checking the RFP Scope (to prevent duplication of Services.) Second by Andrea Halman. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. VI. Transportation Maintenance Report-CLM Jim Fritchey reported: • Conducting General Maintenance • Street Sweeping ongoing • Trimming was delayed due to frost damage - Fungicide was applied to prevent decay VII. Landscape Architect Report -JRL Design A. Proposal for Cross -Walks and Sightline Study - Previously discussed V. C. B. Proposal for Annual Maintenance Consulting Services - Previously discussed V. C. Richard Tindell reviewed Reports #17: (See attached) Photo A & B • Electrical Box is unattached with hanging panel • Located at the airport (middle of the Triangle) • Expressed concern of a Safety issue Photo C • Missing Banner • Casino Sign creates a site line issue Photo D o Missing Banner (near Main) Photo H o Overflowing Trash cans Photo N &O • Cemetery requires Mowing • Leaning Fence • Recommended installing a curb (along the parking lot) Penny Phillippi suggested applying for a Historical Grant for the Cemetery refurbishment. 4 1611 B141 Cemetery Fence options were discussed. (See attached) The Committee was in agreement on the following for the Cemetery • Fence color Gloss Black • Fence style U • The gate will be located at the back of the Cemetery • Include a new Cemetery Sign in the Grant application Staff will follow up on the following: • Obtain Trash can lid replacement locks from the Manufacturer • Banner replacements VIII. Community Redevelopment Agency Brad Muckel questioned style preference for the Immokalee Signs. It was concluded 2 different types were preferred by the Committee: • Entryway signs- Monument style • Edgerrin James sign -Free standing IX. Code Enforcement Report - Weldon Walker -None X. Old Business - None XI. New Business A. FY -2011 Budget Darryl Richard announced the FY2011 Budget will be reviewed at the March 24th meeting. XII. Public Comment — None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:20 PM. Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Cherryle Th as, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on 5- cl q- I as presented or amended The next meeting is March 24, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. One Stop Career Center 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, FL 34142 5 1611 814 Report Date: March 24, 2010 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Immokalee MSTU Project Status (IMM -19) — ACTIVE- 1't Street Irrigation/Landscape: Refurbishment Project 9- 23 -09: Contract/Work Order is being processed anticipate Notice to Proceed after Oct. 1 S` 10- 12 -09: Notice to Proceed for PO 4500111227; JRL IRG DESIGN 1 ST ST. 02- 24 -10: JRL 60% submittal is under review 03- 22 -10: NTP for Landscape Design Work Order (IMM -18) — ACTIVE - Hwy 29 Irrigation/Landscape: Refurbishment Project 9- 23 -09: JRL submittal of concept `draft' design complete; Contract/Work Order is being processed anticipate Notice to Proceed after Oct. I' 10- 12 -09: Notice to Proceed PO 4500111225 JRL IRG DESIGN MAIN ST 02- 24 -10: JRL 100% submittal is under review by staff 03- 22 -10: NTP for Landscape Design Work Order (IMM -17) — ACTIVE - " Edgerrin James Sign" ;Request for Sign indicating "Welcome to Immokalee home of Edgerrin James" for motorist who are traveling to Immokalee 9- 23 -09: CRA to install `sign' and MSTU is to provide for landscaping or amenities around sign (could include lighting) 02- 24 -10: CRA to report on status of `High- school Children' producing sign concepts. (per suggestion made at 01 -27 -10 meeting) (IMM -16) — ACTIVE- "Miles ahead" Sign; Request for Sign indicating "Miles ahead" to Immokalee for motorist who are traveling to Immokalee 02- 24 -10: Traffic Operations will installing quantity 6 miles ahead signs for Immokalee (IMM -15) — ACTIVE- ONGOING —LA Maintenance Consulting; Work Order for JRL; Landscape Architectural Services 02- 24 -10: Ongoing Services from JRL Design; new proposal for new annual contract. (IMM -11) — ACTIVE- ONGOING — Roadway Maintenance: BID #064008 -- expires: March 10, 2010 "Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. /M.S.T.D. Roadway Grounds Maintenance "; Commercial Land Maintenance Contract 02- 24 -10: Ongoing Services from Commercial Land Maintenance 03- 01 -10: NTP Issued under new Contract #09 -5264, "Immokalee Road MSTU/MSTD Landscape Maintenance" AGeTRONIX MINI 1304 N. 15th STREET IMMOKALEE, FL. 34142 239 - 657 -5519 CUSTOMER NAME Collier County DOATM/Transportation FINANCE DEPARTMENT 3301 Tamiami Tr E, Bldg F 7th Fir. Naples, FL 34112 QUO&k Ot/PROPOSAL DATE QUOTE NO. 2/26/2010 1469 yvvin vvvL rvm ou ur%x;5. Page 1 TERMS REP SHIP VIA PROJECT Net 30 SLC ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY PRICE TOTAL Immokalee Main Street -Hwy 29 Irrinet M 12 Station AC- Master 1st Radio Only F4864A IRRInet -M AC 12 DO and 4 DI, 1 1,462.50 1,462.50 FUE5522A CDM750 Radio 450- 512MHz 1 -25W 1 888.00 888.00 FLN3707 CDM Install Kit 1 120.00 120.00 967 -0159 Power supply, switching, in:85- 264VAC, out: I2VDC, 1 110.00 110.00 12.5A, 150W, power factor corr FLN9588A 110/24v AC Transformer (In inet M) 1 160.00 160.00 MLB -I2 -AC Surge Protector AC 4in/I2out 1 378.00 378.00 51020 -WM Leviton Surge Protection 1 189.00 189.00 7299 -NW (8299 -... GFI W/Switch and Cover Leviton (15Amp) 1 39.00 39.00 TP7010 (T -11) Single Gang Box 1 4.15 4.15 493711 Cable/ antenna kit 1711 RG58 phantom MHz 450 -470 1 90.00 90.00 (Optional) 61600 Mini UHF Male Crimp -RG58 Connector 1 4.00 4.00 SB -24DSS SS Enclosure DD 24W X 36H 24D 1 2,280.00 2,280.00 PED -24DSS SS Pedestals 24W X 12H X 20D 1 585.00 585.00 F4604A PICCOLO PIU 1 1,332.00 1,332.00 V377AD PIU DIOS Application 1 386.00 386.00 50537 450 -460 5.OdB Fiberglass antenna omni with N female 1 190.00 190.00 connector 70072 Yagi Antenna 450- 470UHF 7.Idb (N Female) 1 150.00 150.00 451969 LMR400 29 Antenna cable w/ Conn (LMR400) 2 60.00 120.00 Piccolo XR 1Out/lln (Package K2) F4614A PICCOLO -XR 1/1 1 669.00 669.00 AM1206L 12" x 10" x 6" AM Series JIC Size Junction Box w/Snap 1 100.00 100.00 Latch Hinged Cover PA120 12" x 10" AM Series Aluminum Back Panel 1 0.00 0.00 Thank you for your business. TOTAL yvvin vvvL rvm ou ur%x;5. Page 1 AGaTRONIX 81 M010AOU �MN6A110N CONiR01.8151EI15 1304 N. 15th STREET IMMOKALEE, FL. 34142 239 - 657 -5519 CUSTOMER NAME I Collier County DOATMfrransportation FINANCE DEPARTMENT 3301 Tamiami Tr E, Bldg F 7th Flr. Naples, FL 34112 QU0T14b`6SAL DATE QUOTE NO. 2/26/2010 1469 QUOTE GOOD FOR 60 DAYS. Page 2 TERMS REP SHIP VIA PROJECT Net 30 SLC ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY PRICE TOTAL 621 -1283 6v l2ah Powersonic battery 1 29.00 29.00 BSP -2 -7 2.5 W 7v Solar Panel w/ Blocking Diode 1 46.00 46.00 SP -2 2'ftxl "xl /4" Aluminum Fiat Bar (Bracket for BSP -2 -7) 1 10.00 10.00 86216 SMA male connector 1 4.50 4.50 69642 SMA Female Bulkhead Crimp 1 10.50 10.50 54647 Grounding Disc 6" 318" hole use with antenna/ kit 1 13.50 13.50 #493711 24612 L Bracket for a 3/8" Hole 1 6.50 6.50 85135 Antenna Cable (per ft.) RG58 (Belden #8240) 10 0.90 9.00 ABH Aluminum Battery Holder 1 10.00 10.00 ANT -5 5ftxI "xl /4" aluminum flat bar Piccolo XR antenna 1 15.50 15.50 bracket 493711 Cable/ antenna kit 17ft RG58 phantom MHz 450 -470 1 90.00 90.00 (Optional) Piccolo XR 20ut/2In (Package L2) F4614A/V379AH PICCOLO -XR 2/2 4 800.00 3,200.00 AM1206L 12" x 10" x 6" AM Series JIC Size Junction Box w /Snap 4 100.00 400.00 Latch Hinged Cover PA120 12" x 10" AM Series Aluminum Back Panel 4 0.00 0.00 621 -1283 6v 12ah Powersonic battery 4 29.00 116.00 BSP -2 -7 2.5 W 7v Solar Panel w/ Blocking Diode 4 46.00 184.00 SP -2 2'ftx I "x 1/4" Aluminum Flat Bar (Bracket for BSP -2 -7) 4 10.00 40.00 86216 SMA male connector 4 4.50 18.00 69642 SMA Female Bulkhead Crimp 4 10.50 42.00 54647 Grounding Disc 6" 3/8" hole use with antenna/ kit 4 13.50 54.00 #493711 24612 L Bracket for a 3/8" Hole 4 6.50 26.00 85135 Antenna Cable (per ft.) RG58 (Belden #8240) 40 0.90 36.00 ABH Aluminum Battery Holder 4 10.00 40.00 Thank you for your business. TOTAL QUOTE GOOD FOR 60 DAYS. Page 2 'AC -TRO N ix MM 1304 N. 15th STREET IMMOKALEE, FL. 34142 239 - 657 -5519 CUSTOMER NAME Collier County DOATM/Transportation FINANCE DEPARTMENT 3301 Tamiami Tr E, Bldg F 7th Fir. Naples, FL 34112 1611 B�,1 a QUOTATION /PROPOSAL DATE QUOTE NO. 1 2/26/2010 1469 QLjO1 E GOOD FOR 60 DAYS. Page 3 TERMS REP SHIP VIA PROJECT Net 30 SLC ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY PRICE TOTAL ANT -5 511x1 "xl /4" aluminum flat bar Piccolo XR antenna 4 15.50 62.00 bracket 493711 Cable/ antenna kit 17ft RG58 phantom MHz 450 -470 4 90.00 360.00 (Optional) Piccolo XR 40ut/4In (Package M2) F4614AN118AG PICCOLO -XR 4/4 2 93200 1,864.00 AM 1206L 12" x 10" x 6" AM Series JIC Size Junction Box w/Snap 2 100..00 200.00 Latch Hinged Cover PA120 12" x 10" AM Series Aluminum Back Panel 2 0.00 0.00 621 -1283 6v 12ah Powersonic battery 2 29.00 58.00 BSP -2 -7 2.5 W 7v Solar Panel w/ Blocking Diode 2 46.00 92.00 86216 SMA male connector 2 4.50 9.00 69642 SMA Female Bulkhead Crimp 2 10.50 21.00 54647 Grounding Disc 6" 3/8" hole use with antenna/ kit 2 13.50 27.00 #493711 24612 L Bracket for a 3/8" Hole 2 6.50 13.00 85135 Antenna Cable (per R) RG58 (Belden #8240) 20 0.90 18.00 ABH Aluminum Battery Holder 2 10.00 20.00 ANT -5 5fbc1 "xl /4" aluminum flat bar Piccolo XR antenna 2 15.50 31.00 bracket 493711 Cable/ antenna kit 1711 RG58 phantom MHz 450 -470 2 90.00 180.00 (Optional) Thank you for your business. TOTAL $16,612.15 QLjO1 E GOOD FOR 60 DAYS. Page 3 *60 161 '014 C.B. 51MMONDS 3750 Enterprise Avenue Ste. #300 CxECMicaL INC. Ph: (239) 643 -2770 Naples, Florida 34104 -3659 STREET LIGHTING - UTILITIES - GENERATORS Fax: (239) 643 -6873 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL Estimate and Contract Date: March 24, 2010 C.0 Government Transportation Services Division Quote #: 1011893rev 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, F134104 Ph: (239) 252 -5775 Fx: (239) 252 -6627 Attn: Daryl Richard darrylrichard @colliergov.net We hereby submit specifications and estimates for: Immokalee MSTU Irrigation Antenna Tower Project Work includes Radio Propagation Study The construction of a 20"antenna tower with Yagi antenna, antenna cable (50' allowance), lightning protection and grounding. Total Material and Labor THIS CONTRACT EXCLUDES PERMIT, INSPECTION, IMPACT AND UTILITY FEES. We hereby propose to furnish the above complete in accordance with the above specifications for the sum of Ten Thousand Five Hundred Five 60 /100'b Dollars. Payment to be made as follows: In full upon completion of work. It is the responsibility of the purchaser /owner to provide adequate access to the job site. If during the course of the job it becomes necessary to traverse sidewalks, driveways, grass or sod, flowerbeds, sprinklers, etc. Every effort will be made to avoid any damage. Should breaks occur as a direct result of our machinery, repairs may be made at additional cost to the Owner. All material used in this contract is guaranteed to be as specified, and the entire job is to be done in a neat and substantial manner. Any alteration or deviation from the specifications herein agreed upon involving extra cost of labor and material will be executed upon either a written or verbal order for same, and will become an extra charge over the sum mentioned in this contract. Estimate valid for 30 days. Signed by ACCEPTANCE OF ESTIMATE The foregoing terms, specifications and conditions are satisfactory, and the same are hereby accepted and agreed to, and hereby authorize you to execute the same. Date Signed by From: James Coleman [mailto:sgn1man200 @msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 3:45 AM To: RichardDanyl Subject: RE: Quotes for Immokalee Meeting on 3 -24 -10 DARRYL, 16111 B14`' HERE IS THE STUFF WE TALKED ABOUT. ANY PROBLEMS PLEASE CALL pic. 1 & 2 SERVICE REMOVAL WAS-REMOVED LAST WEEK WHEN WE PICKED UP KNOCK DOWN POLE. $275.00 PIC 3. INSTALL UPPER AND LOWER BANNER ARM $1,150.00 PIC 4. UPPER BANNER ARM $375.00 KNOCK DOWN POLE AT NORTH END OF CITY $8,250.00 +/- ON ORDER PARTS/ PCS FOR TALL POLE NEAR 9 TH $2,000.00 +/- ON ORDER REPAIR OF LIGHTING BOXES &WIRE AT TREE LOCATION $2.500.00 EA TOTAL ESTIMATE: $14,550.00 161.1 Bizi, W W W V W O W 01 W W W W N+ W W O N fa N O N V N m N as N A N w N N+ N N O + m + O + V + A + m + A + w + N+ ++ O m pp V Oi dl A W N+ O -atom mm c v c v -4 0� 00 vmM, m ==mZ O c� �G)c'��m� r� =� m mc Z w Zimm�� -i p -�vz Z m m z -i O -I z m O�� 0 0 D -i -+ w Z -i<mmc mm Z ?� v 0 r mm �� mm G)O m mm O �mmz��0 � �m z = - =wmz Z A r, Co -n -<m(4) -n =rte D v m m m m -1 -4 m -4 r�r � o r m z G) c ao 0 m m m m aQ ..n -n " m c co << Cc O m G) D m i n z z A m m m m mM m m -i z 0 i < O CO) c �z m m D m(;)2 v 2 -im0 Gzi z9- -mi ;Dz�)c�O�O n zmm -1 z �� p z�mzz0� ��r�pz� mz �m� m aizmy m G)nzm -�-n m m cc��xr. mOmvv -1 mm Kg Z� v z OmXooz m mcmm �Om z O O m m � m CO) O Z W p m �ZmG)-ya�c�� m 0 z X m m m -i 0 r M m ai 0 m D c 2 c m C) ° -ni -� m M m O m m m c O O m 0 -z m m <m� m� -a < O m zD n m N 0 O 0 m --4 M m D 0 0 O v m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N app + ++ N N O G Vo + A + to W A m O W O W W po W O A m a ID �+ 10 O O O V N W W O W m A -� N O W w CD O 10 OI fT Of A A O. O t0 N O N O O O Cf O A O V O �1 O O 10 O 0 O p 0 W 0 0 CA 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 CT 0 0 O <O W 1+ O O O O O Co m W W 10 td N O O t0 W O� O O Oi O O lT O O w 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 W o 0 c 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01010, 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 g goo 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 M N N M N N N N N ff> en cr. c•: c,-, - v: v- - c, to N N N N N N N N N N N fA fN 0 3 O a. �� cc, r,• N M fA N fA N N N N 40 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N fA N N N N m x Otl CO o V 0O o 0 Im O N QO 7 s (,A T A N W O W O W tW CO 7i pON p W ppV O g Rl. O O O rO+ 0 �A ,tt _ j j M• I. O A OVD N p N OS O p p O N N W V p� A W N N M fA M N N M N N N N N fA N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N M N N N N N W O O W N ct a0, W N o Qo ! co to co pp ORpp qO pWA p w co O O O q Lill [11, W O A W tA 0 + p O O OD p O w OD 9:0 C p p O p p A O 0 ' W V d�f A OD OD I G 3 3 n c vOb � oN3 O � C K am= m S �o O w 00) 4 CA 0 OD CD a N -L O -L Co co co(o r a G -i a -► 0 0 O CC) OD n `T-n � D) D) ?'CC Ch a �_- coo 13) u N rr or r— N N 8° < m n<i O D�0(D g 3 0 CC) 0 0 -L O -L Co co co(o r a G co nfol m W 1661 Q�,p -i a � n CD w� V V` u . r— C- O 3 co nfol m W 1661 Q�,p e71 s O. O -i -1 cn CD CD r C- . r— C- C- N 7C tD �? a O O N o o o w w c c M m v w� v [(OCD: v v v v w @°° cn 3 c c CD m w w w w w r. d w o m m < 3 G n m m 0 0 M m 3 3 N v' D >> o m m o m �i 70' ai a s n� O N CC O (D X o 00 w 0 w O �" N u, 0 (�D m Ov m S nri M C/ z Z r a a a a N m w w 3 0 0 � w 0)� T C7 CD •� O O a) A A A A A A P A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A CA CA 0 CA CA (A CA O CA CA CA M CA Cn CA M 0 cn Cn 0 0 cn O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O Z Z O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) O O. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... .a ` D n n � 0 O o �W C O O CA rnav— 0) � N W 0) O W W N A CD O- A W O— CD A A N Co CD O Cn V N O OD CD O O -4 CC) N -1 N O O w CJ) -I C" CD O N O w O w O O r 0 9 0 a C)� � Z Z Z Z Z t K 1 Z CC) C) 1 000 1 000 1 00o i as 1 00D 1 t Z Z L Z Z t Z �j Z Z Z DDDDD -� t w - � DcwOOOOOODDDDDoDDDDD to (n (n (n (n to Ut � � � � �; �;; L -� A ii W O v Cn 0 Q O 0 0 0 W 4 0 0 0 N W v a UA V) -i -i r p (/) ;U C/) r r r r r r n -i -i X (n (n -p M C) m n o o O� m (n m 0 M o 0 o O a� O O o O o O 0) O N O O 0) (D c@ .»... N a) c c m �, =- -, iu a a a a a a M w v, 0 O O �. OW a) M U A< n im n to o to 3 Ow D °— � ID 0) ID D m M m m w o 0 , a m m m m m M T T 3 wo o N O O (p a N M M n n n A w O _ O Q U ? 3s? S S cn (D fA Q1 vi p CD 3 0 7 �A N N N N N v - O i n O =r c c c c Q m CC w w 0 m m (n cn V Cl) Cl) V) V) o c n ol@ _< zzzazz � 3 O' O' ci ci m N fr7 ffl EF3 ffi ff 1_0 <A {-B ffi kn f{ CD o ry ci, M ci, M a, �� r� co - W .CTS _ry O -A C; . CO (3'+ U U1 O N CXJ ^�6 M, Mw N Pv Co 037 CX; O - C� C7 C� C C C C C G C: C C C C Lo Co r'l? - O C O O O C O O C O N N W Cn co A 4 N V N A y O O O w 07 O -► A co A A N pp N N co (D (O -a OD a i twC (0D (VC O t t N 0 0 0 0 m p O O O O O O 'V CA N C77 A N 0) O OD O O O CD t O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O -01 t t t cfl p O 1 co O O e71 s O. O J.RL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 405 51h AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 239 -261 -4007 1611 B141 Imce�sc,; e �rc��itect's field re��ort COPY TO: ® OWNER ❑ ARCHITECT ❑ ENGINEER ❑ CONSULTANT ® _MSTU Committee_ PROJECT: Immokalee MSTU - PO# 4500105395 REPORT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: CLM JRL COMM No: Date: 2/24/10 & Weather: Scattered Estimate % Complete: N/A 3117/10 Clouds Time: 10:30 - noon Temp Range: 63 Schedule Conformance: As scheduled PRESENT: Commercial Maintenance & Richard Tindell (both) WORK IN PROGRESS: Contractor not present March 17 9003 OBSERVATIONS: Site is looking good, Routine maintenance work has been performed REVIEWS: Maintenance agreement REPORT: Pre MSTU meeting inspection was routine. Questions were raised about status of expanded work area. Project Manager to verify new extents. Other than mowing, routine maintenance work has been performed and trash removed. Route seemed impressively clean for this observation. Grass has not been recently mowed probably due to yesterdays rain. Electrical box in triangle near air port has been removed. Sabal palm tree has been replaced at north 29 triangle. Extensive cold damaged or dead plant material should be removed. 10 dead or dying foxtail palms should be removed. Banners still missing. Now would be a good time to schedule routine fertilization. ACTION REQUIRED: Request more direction from County and MSTU Board. Reported by: Richard Tindell, asla, registered landscape architect LA767 161 `1'8 14 1 v-- [MMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ECEIVED AUG 1 1 2010 Board of Count/ Commissioners April 28, 2010 Minutes Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta —-- I. The meeting was called to order by Cherryle Thomas at 4:35 p.m. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: William Deyo, Cherryle Thomas, Lucy Ortiz, Andrea Halman (Excused), Carrie Williams (Excused) County: Darryl Richard – Project Manger, Tessie Sillery– Operations Coordinator, Caroline Soto–Budget Analyst, Weldon Walker – Code Enforcement Others: Richard Tindell –JRL, Jim Fritchey –CLM, Bradley Muckel – Immokalee CRA, Fred Thomas – Immokalee CRA, Christie Betancourt – Immokalee CRA, Sue Flynn – Juristaff Also present: Ron Shimko – American Discount Pharmacy III. Approval of Agenda Add: VI. C. Review Banner Quotes Change: V. Community Redevelopment Agency IX. Code Enforcement Report Lucy Ortiz moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes: March 24, 2010 Add: II. Attendance – Also present: Christie Betancourt – Immokalee CRA William Deyo moved to approve the March 24, 2010 minutes as amended. Second by Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Community Redevelopment Agency - Welcome to Immokalee Signs Bradley Muckel, CRA displayed the Immokalee High School art contest entries for the Advisory Committee's review. The Committee voted to chose the MSTU's winning design. (See attached) The Committee requested the student change the "star" to a "football" as positioned on the state map of Florida. CRA will vote on the designs at their May 15th meeting. The 3- Welcorr Si : will be installed at Immokalee main entrance roads and will be funded by the Date: 1 Item Copies to: 1611 B14 Immokalee MSTU and the CRA. The student with the winning entry will receive a higher grade and recognition (the students name will shown at the bottom of welcome sign) will be reported to the Immokalee Bulletin for publication. VI. Transportation Services Report — Discussed afterXl. XI. New Business Cherryle Thomas welcomed and introduced Ron Shimko, a new Immokalee business owner of American Discount Pharmacy. Ron Shimko requested 2 permanent trash receptacles be placed near the sidewalk between the American Discount Pharmacy and the Family Dollar Store. Darryl Richard recommended ordering 4 additional trash receptacles; 2 for the Coral Palm Villas and 2 for the American Discount Pharmacy and the Family Dollar Store locations. Ron Shimko questioned how to resolve the Family Dollar Store's unsightly mailbox issue. Staff directed him to Code Enforcement and the Postmaster. William Deyo moved that Staff order 4 -trash receptacles to be place in the locations (2 for Family Dollar and American Discount Pharmacy and 2 for Coral Palm Villas) as previously discussed. Second by Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. VI. Transportation Services Report A. Budget — Caroline Soto reviewed the following Budget items: (See attachments) o Uncollected Ad Valorem Tax $50,642.44 o Available Operating Expense $27,699.85 o Available Improvements General $570,199.85 B. Project Manager Report — Discussed under Vl. C. C. Review Banner Quotes Darryl Richard reported the receipt of 3 quotes for 90 Banners. He recommended the Committee accept the lowest quote from Carrot -Top. The 3 quotes received were as follows: • Arkansas Flag & Banner Inc. $8,073.00 • Carrot -Top Industries $5,186.70 • Lykins Signtek $9,080.00 The banners will have 10 different designs with the same design shown on both sides of the banner. Carrot -Top charges $255 to produce a product sample. A $255 credit will be applied to the final invoice. Lucy Ortiz moved to direct staff to order banners from Carrot -Top not to exceed $5,700. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. 1611 B14 1 Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed the Immokalee MSTU Project Status Report. • Hwy 29 (1St to 9tn Street) Irrigation Project - Plans are under review by Staff. • 1 st Street Irrigation Project — Plans are under review by Staff. • Ongoing Maintenance of Hwy 20 and 1St Street VII. Transportation Maintenance Report — CLM — Discussed after Vlll. VIII. Landscape Architect Report -JRL Design Richard Tindell distributed and reviewed Report #19 and #20. (See attachments) Report #19 He reported visiting the Ave Maria site to review the plants used to landscape per Committee's request to use the same type of plants. The report included 8- pictures. Photo 8 was on a sidewalk cleaning steam cleaner with brushes Ave Maria was using to clean and remove gum off their sidewalks. He recommended the Committee give thought to using this same equipment to remove the gum off the MSTU sidewalks. Report #20 He reported doing a routine inspection and reported as follows. ➢ Several plantings have recovered from the cold weather this winter. ➢ Some plants are blocking sight views and need to be trimmed back or removed. He recommended removing them. Darryl Richard stated Staff will request a quote for the removal of plants at this commercial corner. ➢ The Immokalee sign on 26 is missing. ➢ He recommended planting geraniums to give color through the summer at the Welcome to Immokalee "My Home" sign at the 29t location. ➢ Bougainville and Crown of Thorns damage need to be trimmed back to new growth and the dead ones need to be removed. ➢ Dead foxtail palms need to be removed. Richard Tindell reported the following safety issues on Main Street • The height of the curbs where they meet the planting soil could cause tripping for pedestrians crossing this busy street. • Irrigation pipes and equipment boxes. • Lack of mulch. • The FDOT safety cones are making a difference. • Curb side planters are blocking sight views. • Sidewalks need to be cleaned. Richard Tindell distributed a Preliminary Median Plant List. (See attached) He stated 50% of the plants listed are native and the plants with "yes" behind them are on the "County Pre - Approved" list. He will provide pictures after he meets with the County Staff. All plants on list provided meet County code requirements. 3 161,1z B14`! Staff reported Eugene Calvert, CC Engineer, who recently worked on Immokalee Safety Study, volunteered his services as an Engineer Oversight. It was noted an engineering firm would no longer be required. Fred Thomas stated there will be changes when the loop road is constructed on the east side of the airport over the next five years. He stated EIS is in the final phase and recommended not investing a lot of money and noted the crosswalks were a major problem and should be addressed. He suggested using plants in the medians that pedestrians would not want to walk through for safety purposes. Staff stated JRL is aware of the concept work with RWA and LDI and could prepare the MSTU for the changes with funds well spent. Fred Thomas suggested Staff call Mike Ramsey from the Water Symposium who is willing to come and do a 500' demonstration. They have offered to do a landscape design and install native, water free plants. The MSTU would have to maintain once installed. Darryl Richard cautioned the Committee that "strictly native" would look entirely different from what they are use to viewing. William Deyo moved JRL incorporate the CRA Concept into the Scope. Second by Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. Staff stated they would extend an invitation to Mike Ramsey to give a presentation at a future MSTU meeting. VII. Transportation Maintenance Report — CLM Jim Fritchey reported he will provide quotes for replacement plants. Fertilization has been completed. Pressure cleaning, flushing out drains and palm fronds removal has been scheduled to begin April 29. Darryl Richard recommended the Committee direct Staff to authorize CLM to rent new equipment to clean sidewalks not to exceed $3,000. Lucy Ortiz moved to direct Staff to authorize CLM to rent new equipment to clean sidewalks and to monitor if it is more effective then the current equipment not to exceed $3,000. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IX. Code Enforcement Report Weldon Walker reported the next "Clean -Up Day" will be held on May 8t" for the east side of Delaware. He said dumpsters will be available residence to rid yard liter without expense. He stated Code Enforcement and the Task Force are working together to increase the number of "Clean -Up Days" to hold one a month. ld 1611 B14 I He stated his department has been busy with abandon homes, etc. and urged residents to email any code enforcement issues to him at WeldonWalker(aD-collier ocL v.net . X. Old Business — None. XI. New Business — None. XII. Public Comment Lucy Ortiz reported she visited Altamont Springs and shared how beautiful the park was and that speakers along the sidewalk provided soft music. She will bring pictures to the next meeting for the Committee's review and suggested adopting some ideas for the parks in Immokalee. There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 PM. Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee //V GCS Cherrylethomas, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented or amended The next meeting is May 26, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. One Stop Career Center 750 South 5t" Street Immokalee, FL 34142 5 161'1 B14" Report Date: May 26, 2010 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Immokalee MSTU Project Status (MIM -20) — ACTIVE- Hwy 29 Cross -Walk Project 04- 28 -10: Project Scope is under review. Modification to `Project Scope' has been requested. 5- 26 -10: Project Scope submitted for Committee review /approval (Rv M -19) — ACTIVE -1st Street Irrigation/Landscape: Refurbishment Project 9- 23 -09: Contract/Work Order is being processed anticipate Notice to Proceed after Oct. 1st 10- 12 -09: Notice to Proceed for PO 4500111227; JRL IRG DESIGN 1ST ST. 02- 24 -10: JRL 60% submittal is under review 03- 22 -10: NTP for Landscape Design Work Order 05- 26 -10: Irrigation Plans are under review by Staff (R" -18) — ACTIVE- Hwy 29 Irrigation/Landscape: Refurbishment Project 9- 23 -09: JRL submittal of concept `draft' design complete; Contract/Work Order is being processed anticipate Notice to Proceed after Oct. 1" 10- 12 -09: Notice to Proceed PO 4500111225 JRL IRG DESIGN MAIN ST 02- 24 -10: JRL 100% submittal is under review by staff 03- 22 -10: NTP for Landscape Design Work Order 05- 26 -10: Irrigation Plans are under review by Staff (IMM -17) — ACTIVE- " Edgerrin James Sign" ;Request for Sign indicating "Welcome to Immokalee home of Edgerrin James" for motorist who are traveling to Immokalee 9- 23 -09: CRA to install `sign' and MSTU is to provide for landscaping or amenities around sign (could include lighting) 02- 24 -10: CRA to report on status of `High - school Children' producing sign concepts. (per suggestion made at 01 -27 -10 meeting) (IMM -16) — ACTIVE- "Miles ahead" Sign; Request for Sign indicating "Miles ahead" to Immokalee for motorist who are traveling to Immokalee 02- 24 -10: Traffic Operations will installing quantity 6 miles ahead signs for Immokalee (IMM -15) — ACTIVE- ONGOING —LA Maintenance Consulting; Work Order for JRL; Landscape Architectural Services 02- 24 -10: Ongoing Services from JRL Design; new proposal for new annual contract. (IMM -11) — ACTIVE- ONGOING — Roadway Maintenance: BID #06 -4008 -- expires: March 10, 2010 " Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. /M.S.T.D. Roadway Grounds Maintenance "; Commercial Land Maintenance Contract 02- 24 -10: Ongoing Services from Commercial Land Maintenance 03- 01 -10: NTP Issued under new Contract #09 -5264, " Immokalee Road MSTU/MSTD Landscape Maintenance" J.RL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN May 1, 2010 16 P:1 Mr. Darryl Richard, Immokalee Beautification, M.S.T.U. Collier County Traffic Operations & Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 Subject: Main Street Improvements: Intersections/ corner planters/ safety bollard barriers/ site line compliance study - REVISED Services Contract RFP # 08 -5060, for Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. Dear Mr. Richard, As requested, the following is presented for your review and approval. The landscape architectural consulting services will provide conceptual, schematic design alternatives and recommendations for the road, median, and R.O.W. profile and conceptual design alternatives for the pedestrian crosswalks to improve the intersections' lines of sight in coordination with the M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee and your office. Conceptual designs will incorporate site analysis, schematic design alternatives, construction documents with reviews @ 30 %, 60 %, & 90% for the selected designs including planting and irrigation. Scope of Work excludes necessary engineering and construction administration; each of which will be under separate agreements. JRL Design Studios agrees to provide the following services. Landscape Architecture Consulting Services "Scope of Services" Task 1 : Site Inventory & Analysis - An on -site documentation coordination with RWA/Staff of the existing conditions including verifications of planting, curbing, bollards, drainage, planters and sight line compliance study. - Preparation of an accurate base map adequate for design purposes. *Staff will obtain and provide survey (RWA to provide survey under separate contract). in a timely manner. JRL Design Studios, LLC shall coordinate and utilize this survey data as the basis of existing conditions and base plan preparation. (Includes 2 meetings with County Staff and RWA with one JRL representative.) $6,340.00 Task 2 : Preliminary Schematic & Concept Designs: Main Street Intersection & ROW profile evaluation (for Review) - A conceptual sketch outlining an improvement to the intersections, bulb -outs & corners incorporating removal of bollards, planting modifications, curbs & drainage revisions, street crossing safety additions and verification on line of sight compliance. - Diagramic Plan indicating sightline requirements per current FDOT Sightline standards with itemized list of current installations in violation of FDOT Standards. 405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 - F. 239.261.5378 email: studio(Wirl- desicm.com website: www.irl- design.com 16111 814 ' • Sketch design studies examining street profiles and cross sections relative to traffic lanes, medians, and sidewalks for review with County Staff. • Meetings with County Staff and selected stakeholders for feasibility input and comments (CRA, FDOT). • Preparation of the selected plan for presentation and issuance for approval and basis for Construction Document production $14,166.00 Task 3 : Construction Documents (based on selected of concept design plan) for landscape architectural elements • Prepare Construction documents for Main Street Intersections & Street Crossing Improvements. Incorporating removal and /or demolition of existing structures, new curbing, drainage, crossings, planters, and irrigation design improvements and elements associated with landscape architectural. • Plans prepared in accordance with Current FDOT Standards & Guidelines & ADA Standards • Coordination with FDOT in plan review and approval; 'Engineering Plans' for the crosswalk to be by others • Layout Plans and details & landscape related elements • Related short form specifications. • Reviews at 30 %, 60 %, and 90% completion $11,956.00 Reimbursable Expenses $ 1,930.00 Total compensation $34,382.00 Schedule B COMPENSATION Task 1 : Site Inventory & Analysis Based upon the scope of services outlined, JRL Design Studios will provide the consulting services as follows: Personnel Est. Hrs Current Rate Est. Cost Principal /Senior Landscape Architect 24 $128.00 $3,072.00 Landscape Architect 8 $120.00 $ 960.00 Design Associate 8 $ 75.00 $ 600.00 Technical Staff 24 $ 62.00 $1,488.00 Administrative 4 $ 55.00 $ 220.00 Total $6,340.00 Task 2: Preliminary Schematic & Concept Desian: Main Street Intersections & R.O.W. Profile Evaluation Personnel Est Hrs Current Rate Est Cost Principal /Senior Landscape Architect 30 $128.00 $3,840.00 (T & M) Landscape Architect 40 $120.00 $4,800.00 (T & M) Design Associate 28 $ 75.00 $2,100.00 (T & M) Technical Staff 48 $ 62.00 $2,976.00 (T & M) Administrative 8 $ 55.00 $ 440.00 (T & M) Total $14,156.00 405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 - F. 239.261.5378 email: studioca-)W- desiQn.com website: www.irl- design.com ibis Task 3: Construction Documents: Main Street Intersection only (Reviews Ca 30% 60% & 90 %) Personnel Est. Hrs Current Rate Est Cost Principal /Senior Landscape Architect 16 $128.00 $2,048.00 Landscape Architect 24 $120.00 $2,880.00 Design Associate 32 $ 75.00 $2,400.00 Technical Staff 64 $ 62.00 $3,968.00 Administrative 12 $ 55.00 $ 660.00 Total $11,956.00 Reimbursable Expenses $ 1,930.00 Please submit this proposal for the execution of an official Work Order. We look forward to working with your department in improving, maintaining and enhancing the M.S.T.U. areas. Respectfully Submitted, i ibes, FASLA President of JRL Design Studios, LLC 405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 - F. 239.261.5378 email: stud io(abiri- design.corn website: www.iri- design.com 1 1 JDRI E 8 1 G N LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 405 5th AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 239 - 261 -4007 fflo'sud psno ark COPY TO: ® OWNER ❑ ARCHITECT ❑ ENGINEER ❑ CONSULTANT ® _MSTU Committee_ PROJECT: Immokalee MSTU - PO# 4500116856 REPORT NUMBER: 21 CONTRACTOR: CLM JRL COMM No: 9003 Date: 4/28/10 & Weather: Overcast & Estimate % Complete: N/A 5/19/10 Humid Time: 11:30-1:30 Temp Range: 85 Schedule Conformance: As scheduled PRESENT: April: Jim from Commercial Maintenance, Darryl from Collier County & Richard Tindell (at both) WORK IN PROGRESS: Contractor present OBSERVATIONS: Site is looking good, Little trash observed. Routine maintenance work has been performed. Shrub trimming along First was underway, mowers and sweeping crew was not observed REVIEWS: Maintenance agreement REPORT: Pre MSTU meeting inspection was routine. Report reviewed and concerns discussed Other than mowing, routine maintenance work has been performed and trash removed. In general Immokalee continues to show a marked improvement from a year ago. Therefore many of the previously reported problems that are yet to be addressed will keep showing up. On May 12, Pam Lulich, Darryl Richards and Richard Tindell met to review the proposed plant palette presented at the April meeting, it was approved and the irrigation plans for First and Main wre discussed. May observations, please refer to attached photos (16 pictures, 4 pages) Image 1 - Crew at work on First near Casino. No traffic signage, flagman or barricades observed. Image 2 & 3 - Cold damage and missing crown -of- thorns still to be removed. Note young weeds. 161-1 814 ' J.RL 0 E V. . . . LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 405 5th AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 239 - 261 -4007 Image 4 & 5 - Note missing light fixture base and exposed wires Image 6 - Banners missing at both ends of First Image 7 & 9 - Dead and missing plants at bulb outs along Main Image 8 - Plantings still obscure sight lines Image 10 - Broken Bollard has not been repaired or replaced, note street debris filling storm grate Image 11 - Dirt is collecting between new HC ramps and bulb out channels - it should be removed Image 12 & 13 - Dead palms in various locations need to be removed Image 14 - Crown -of- thorns have been replaced in kind at northern SR 29 monument sign. Juniper has yet to be replaced Image 15 & 16 - 4 dead palms have been removed along Main near 9th. Pits have been partly filled and flagged. Check to insure irrigation has been capped and barriers meet County requirements Another long standing problem is the trip hazards crossing the median on Main Street in town. The height of the curbs where they met the planting soil can cause tripping while crossing this busy road, especially for children. Other objects such as irrigation pipes and equipment boxes are also a problem. It appears that the efforts of the MSTU is having the desired impact and the citizens of Immokalee are showing "pride of place" The Main Street and First Street corridors continue to improve. They are neater and cleaner however, curb side planters continue to be a problem as does sidewalk cleaning. ACTION REQUIRED: Request more direction from County and MSTU Board. Reported by: Richard Tindell, asla, registered landscape architect LA767 Immokalee 20100519_01 Immokalee 20100519_03 1611 B14" Immokalee 20100519_02 Immokalee 20100519_04 1611 *B14 ` m -- - - Immokalee 20100519_07 Immokalee 2010051908 Immokalee 20100519_09 161 Immokalee 20100519_10 Immokalee 20100519 11 Immokalee 20100519_12 1611 B14`r Immokalee 2010051913 �t Immokalee 2010051914 Immokalee 2010051915 Immokalee 2010051916 Median Plant List - Immokalee May 20, 2010 GROUNDCOVERS & SHRUBS Acrostichum daneifolia Ficus sp Ilex cornuta Ilex vomitoria "Schellings Dwarf' Raphiolepis indica Jasmine multiflorum Jasmine volubile Juniperus conferta Juniperus horizontalis Lantana camara Lariope muscari Plumbagp indica Serenoa repens Viburnum odoratissimun Trachelospermum jasminodes PALMS TREES 16 14 B14 Native Drought Zone Leather fern Pygmy Date Palm low 9 -11 Green Island Fig cultivar med 10 Chinese Holly 8 -11 med 7 -9 Dwarf yaupon holly yes high 7 -10 Indian Hawthorne cultivar med 8 -11 Downy Jasmine Yaupon holly med 10 Wax Jasmine Raphiolepis indica med 10 Shore Juniper 8 -11 high 6 -10 Creeping Juniper yes high 3 -9 Lantana yes high 9 -11 Liriope Wax myrtle high 6 -10 Plumbago Quercus virginiana med 10 -11 Saw pelmetto yes hign 8 -11 Sweet Viburnum hign med 8 -10 Confiderate jasmine med 8 -10 B Phoenix roebelenii Pygmy Date Palm hign 10 -11 Sabal palmetto Cabbage palm yes hign 8 -11 Serenoa repens Saw pelmetto yes hign 8 -11 Ilex attenuata East Palatka holly cultivar med 7 -10 B Ilex vomitoria Yaupon holly yes high 7 -10 Raphiolepis indica Indian Hawthorne med 8 -11 Ligustrum japonicum Ligustrim high 7 -10 B Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia yes med 7 -10 B Myrica cerifera Wax myrtle yes high 6 -11 Quercus virginiana Live Oak yes hign 7 -10 B Pinus elliottii denea Southern slash pine yes hign 8 -10 B Cordia boissieri White Geiger high 9 -10 B Median Plant List - Immokalee May 20, 2010 GROUNDCOVERS & SHRUBS Acrostichum daneifolia Ficus sp Ilex cornuta Ilex vomitoria "Schellings Dwarf' Raphiolepis indica Jasmine multiflorum Jasmine volubile Juniperus conferta Juniperus horizontalis Lantana camara Lariope muscari Plumbagp indica Serenoa repens Viburnum odoratissimun Trachelospermum jasminodes PALMS TREES 161'1 1 814 Native Drought Zone Leather fern Pygmy Date Palm low 9 -11 Green Island Fig cultivar med 10 Chinese Holly 8 -11 med 7 -9 Dwarf yaupon holly yes high 7 -10 Indian Hawthorne cultivar med 8 -11 Downy Jasmine Yaupon holly med 10 Wax Jasmine Raphiolepis indica med 10 Shore Juniper 8 -11 high 6 -10 Creeping Juniper yes high 3 -9 Lantana yes high 9 -11 Liriope Wax myrtle high 6 -10 Plumbago Quercus virginiana med 10 -11 Saw pelmetto yes hign 8 -11 Sweet Viburnum hign med 8 -10 Confiderate jasmine med 8 -10 B Phoenix roebelenii Pygmy Date Palm hign 10 -11 Sabal palmetto Cabbage palm yes hign 8 -11 Serenoa repens Saw pelmetto yes hign 8 -11 Ilex attenuata East Palatka holly cultivar med 7 -10 B Ilex vomitoria Yaupon holly yes high 7 -10 Raphiolepis indica Indian Hawthorne med 8 -11 Ligustrum japonicum Ligustrim high 7 -10 B Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia yes med 7 -10 B Myrica cerifera Wax myrtle yes high 6 -11 Quercus virginiana Live Oak yes hign 7 -10 B Pinus elliottii denea Southern slash pine yes hign 8 -10 B Cordia boissieri White Geiger high 9 -10 B 16r1 B 1a &-yM"C-Nft S3�ffiposium � 2010 Water Symposium of Florida, Inc. Project Overview PROJECT ROAD GREENSCAPE: Greening Up the Roads. Road Median / Landscaping becoming resource friendly and reducing costs The Water Symposium of Florida, Inc. (WSF) is seeking sponsorship of our 2010 activities to promote the conservation of water and "greening" of road median landscaping activities. For 2010, the WSF is undertaking a road median landscaping project in 2 -3 areas around Collier County to investigate and provide information as to how to design, set up and maintain road landscaping in a way that will provide for aesthetics, provide a cost savings, conserve water and inputs. The WSF with its partners is planning to produce a report package of plant species selections, design considerations, and irrigation options intended to provide options to government entities, and landscape professionals for road landscaping options for water conservation and cost savings. The basis of this effort will be based on the Florida Friendly Yards concept. After initial design and set up, 2 years of annual maintenance data and cost will be collected and presented at annual symposium updates and reports. Presentations are being planned for May 2010, 2011 and 2012; and a final report in 2013. Present road median landscaping designs are created to provide an immediate "picture" of the perfect "vision" at the time of planting. To achieve the perfect vision requires lots of water, lots of irrigation infrastructure and lots of cost up front in the plant selection and replacement process. The Project Road Greenscape is project is to present a different "foundation" or "core" planting that uses less water, lower initial planting costs, lower annual maintenance costs and replacements. The WSF Project Greenscape concepts provides a standard for a "core or foundation" planting that allows customization to each community's ideas. Project Greenscape seeks to provide an option for consideration using less water and reduced cost based on smart horticultural selections. Demonstration Project Locations: Marco Island: City Hall Everglades City: Road Median in front of City Hall 1611 B14 I Transportation Division Alternative Transportation Modes Admin MSTU's & Landscape Operations (I 11) Mission Statement To provide maintenance of landscaped, non - landscaped, and roadsides on selected County roadways to most the standards adopted by the Board of County Commissioners and to support Florida Statutes Chapters 74.191. To provide supervision, coordination, manpower and support equipment to maintain the highest possible level of landscape service. To provide coordinated staff support and project management to multiple MSTU's in roadway, stormwater and landscape beautification. Program Summary ''% County Medians: Landscape Maintenance Field 3upen4don and maintenance work performed on landscaped and non4andscaped medians and roadsides. Complete monthly inspections, quarterly reports to maintain a high level of maintenance. County Medians: Plan Reviews & Landscape Project Management Plan reviews for new County roadways and ROW permits. Project management and coordination of landscape beautification project within the right*f-vray, irrcluding retention ponds, median plantings, signage and other built structures. FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2010 Total FTE Budget Revenues Net Cost 13.00 4,653,848 - 4,653,648 3.00 265,353 265,353 MSTU Project Management 2.00 171,099 - 171,099 Project management and coordination of beautification MSTU's. Unfilled Positions 1,00 Current Level of Service Budget 19.00 5,090,100 5,090,100 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 Program Performance Measures Actual Budget Forecast Budget Landscape operating (maintenance) cost per mile at LOS (Level of Service) 85,339 76,871 57,779 57,779 Number of irrigation lane miles maintained '9' Number of oenwkie miles maintained 90.40 93.90 106.05 106.05 90.40 90.40 125.90 128.05 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2010 Program Budgetary Cost Summary Actual Adopted Forecast Current Expanded Adopted Change _ -- Personal SwAces 1,191,595 1,135,400 1,198,700 1,144,200 - 1,144,200 - - - - -- ... 0.8% Operating Expense 3,812,245 3,899,500 3,945,300 3,945,900 - 3,945,900 11% — CaoltaLOutlay- 17,447 - 4,300 - --- ^ - -- _ ---- -__ —_— ..... - -- Net Operating Budget 5,021,287 5,034,900 5,148,300 5,090,1100 - -T 5,090,100 — 1.1% Total Budget 5 U 900 5.1486300 5 090 lop TAI FTE 19.0000 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 FY 2008 Program Funding Sources Actual FY 2009 Adopted FY 2009 Forecast FY 2010 Current FY 2010 Expanded FY 2010 Adopted FY 2010 Change Charges For Services 340 Miscellaneous Revenues 16,098 - na Net Cost MSTDt3eneralFund 5,004,849 5,034,900 5,148,300 5,090,100 5,090,100 na 1.1% Total Funding 5,021,287 5034900 5,148,300 5,080,100 5,090,100 1.1% Fiscal Year 2010 18 Transportation Division Florida Friendly Landscape Demonstration Garden I Coastal Breeze Newt 6 1 Florida Friendly Landscape Demonstration Garden I4# rx- ..1-4x 4 C.k) 11 *11 I sr��t #�.srati n 1'Insatsn Watr♦ Symposium I f2 4 Landscaping the Florida - Friendly way means using low maintenance plants and environmentally sustainable practices that also can save money. South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the University of Florida (UF -IFAS) are leading the effort in the State of Florida to incorporate Florida Friendly Landscaping (FFL) to protect natural resources, specifically ground and surface water protection and conservation. The City's Landscape Ordinance (Section 30 -432), references Xeriscape, a terminology originally coined in Colorado that refers to practices of irrigation and plant species choices that conserve water use. This practice has morphed into FFL which still incorporates water conservation but also specific Floridian environment conditions and emphasizes pollution control to nearby surface waters. Staff will be acting to incorporate language into the current Landscape Ordinance that includes the nine principles of FFL (listed below). The 9 Principles of Florida - Friendly Landscaping (FFL) • Right Plant, Right Place • Water Efficiently • Fertilize Appropriately • Mulch • Attract Wildlife • Manage Yard Pests • Recycle • Reduce Storm Water Runoff • Protect Waterfront http: / /coastalbreezenews.conV 2010 /04 /22 / Forida- friendly- landsc ape- demonstration- garden... 4/23/2010 Florida Friendly Landscape Demonstration Garden I Coastal Breeze News Page 2 of 2 I611 814 To further promote the concept of FFL, the City of Marco Island is taking the opportunity to partner with SFWMD, Big Cypress Basin and the Collier County Water Symposium Board to design and plant a FFL Demonstration Garden on the City Hall campus. This area is located within pedestrian sidewalks near the entrance of the Police Department. The planting area is approximately 450 square feet and will incorporate eight species of plants in a well- designed, aesthetically pleasing landscape. The City's Beautification Advisory Committee has approved the concept, site, use of species and design. This will be a public education tool to demonstrate the FFL principals to our community. The FFL Demonstration Garden will be planted in the second week of May and should take a day to install. No cost is incorporated with this partnered project other than staff time to prepare the site prior to planting. Donations from local nurseries for plant material and installation by local landscape contractors have been coordinated. SFWMD and OF -IFAS have used their expertise on design and Parks and Recreation staff will maintain the garden while doing routine landscape maintenance on the City Hall campus for the pleasure of our community. An approved sign will acknowledge donators and contributors and plant species signs will label the species used. A proposed ribbon - cutting ceremony will occur prior to the May 17th City Council Workshop to highlight the garden and effort. Attached is a map depicting the location for the FFL Demonstration Garden and the landscape design with species listed. For more information, please contact Nancy Richie, Environmental Specialist, City of Marco Island at 239 - 389 -5003 or nrichie @cityofmarcoisland.com or Lisa Koehler, SFWMD, Big Cypress Basin office at 239 - 263 -7821 or lkoehler @sfwmd.gov. Share and Enjoy: Post Published: 22 April 2010 Author: Nancy Richie Found in section: Environment Tags: Coastal Breeze News, Environment, Landscape, Marco Island http: // coastalbreezenews .com /2010 /04 /221florida- friendly - landscape- demonstration - garden... 4/23/2010 16I�1° B14 New median landscape project being proposed. Lisa Koehler, Big Cypress Basin The Water Symposium of Florida, Inc, (WSF) a non - profit group dedicated to the education of water conservation and improvement of water quality in our community. The Big Cypress Basin, the local office of South Florida Water Management District, has partnered with this group over the last several years to conduct educational demonstration projects throughout the community. Water Symposium Inc. (WSF) has a proud and established history of projects promoting water conservation and information. Since 2000, WSF has provided our community with opportunities to evaluate projects, attend lectures by industry representatives, and participate in numerous social and water conservation activities. Each year a new water conservation project is selected and demonstrated to the public and this year it is the Median Greenscape Project. After being approached by Commissioner Jim Coletta and Clarence Tears of the Big Cypress Basin, this year,the WSF is creating a new roadway median landscape design using Florida Friendly Landscape TM (FFL) principals. The WSF Median Greenscape project will use Florida - Friendly Landscape TM (FFL) principals which means utilizing low maintenance plants and environmentally sustainable practices. FFL incorporates water conservation and emphasized pollution control to nearby surface waters. New land use policies, consumer demand, and the economy are driving changes in landscape design and maintenance in residential and commercial developments. Currently, the County's FY 2010 budget estimates between $40,000 - $57,000 per mile of landscape median for overall maintenance of landscape medians with an estimated total of $4 -5 million for all medians in the county. The current gallons of irrigation water pumped are estimated to be around 160 million gallons a year and could increase to an estimated 400 -500 million gallons a year when all the medians are fully landscaped. The WSF intends to demonstrate a beautiful roadway median that will save tax payers money, reduce water consumption and surface water pollution. Three locations have been selected to demonstrate these FFL medians: • Collier County - Immokalee at Wilson • Marco Island – City Hall • Everglades City – Broadway Rd. Our yards and neighborhoods are channels to our waterways. Landscaped areas are the first line of defense for preserving Florida's fragile environment. The health of Florida's estuaries, rivers, lakes, springs and aquifers depends partly on how we landscape and maintain our yards and roadway medians. Rain that falls on yards, roads and parking lots can wash into waterways or leach into ground water, carrying pollutants — including fertilizers, pesticides, animal waste, soil and petroleum products. Improperly applied fertilizers and pesticides from residential areas pose a serious threat to the health of Florida's waters. If you interested in partnering with WSF or simply would like additional information about the project, please contact Michael Ramsey at 564 -1660 or Lisa Koehler at 263 -7615. PETER GADDY: Beauty has its price on Collier roadways : naplesnews.c16 itn14 2 i♦ � l �7► . M Read more at napiesnews,corn PETER GADDY: Beauty has its price on Collier roadways By Peter Gaddy: Wednesday, December 9, ?009 Why do we have so much roadway landscaping in Collier County, and can we afford to keep it? In 1987 the Florida legislature directed the Florida Department of Transportation to form a statewide beautification plan for state transportation facilities. By 1995, FDOT had promulgated the "Florida Highway Landscape Guide." The document unhesitatingly begins with the following conclusion: "The condition, safety and attractiveness of the state's urban, suburban, and rural corridors are important issues with residents of the state and travelers along the highways." Further legislation encouraged local communities to begin their own roadway beautification programs. It did not take Collier County long to jump on the bandwagon. By 1997, the county produced it's own master plan entitled "Naplescape '90s." (The document may be found under Alternative Transportation Modes on the county Web site.) At that time, only 20 miles of roadway were landscaped. Naplescape represented an ambitious plan to beautify a total of 120 miles of Collier's roadways. The landscaping plans for roadways eventually found their way into strict landscaping requirements for residential and commercial development. New commercial centers are required to set aside a minimum of 10 percent of their parking area for landscaping and require that no parked car be more the 50 feet from a tree. Recently, local residents along reconstructed Vanderbilt Beach, Rattlesnake Hammock and Immokalee roads demanded and received the lush landscaping, which characterizes much of Collier County, at a cost of $1.7 million. Our current complex landscape laws are designed to improve the appearance of development while harmonizing with the natural environment. Seems like a wonderful program that everyone can enjoy. Unfortunately, a few negatives have surfaced over the last 20 years or so. The cost of installation has continued to increase with inflation; the one mile of landscaping at the new overpass cost more than $750,000 to install. The biggest cost, however, is not the initial planting but the maintenance. It currently costs about $68,000 per mile per year to maintain the landscaping. The county is currently spending about $6 million per year on landscape maintenance costs and if all the future roads are built, that cost will escalate to $15 http: / /www. naplesnews.conVnewsl 2009 /dec /09 /peter - gaddy- beauty- has - its - price - collier -r... 12/11/2009 PETER GADDY: Beauty has its price on Collier roadways: naplesnews.com Page 2 of 2 1611 914 million a year. Over a 10 -year period, the installation cost only represents 20 percent of the total cost. The maintenance cost represents a perpetual expenditure of funds. Complex irrigation systems have to be continually maintained. Some of the water used is reclaimed, some is provided by wells and the balance is drinking water. Overspray is a public safety hazard to vehicular traffic. Mulch washes into the storm sewers, which also have to be cleaned and maintained. Many of the plantings do not thrive because they were planted in soils contaminated by the road construction process. This necessitates replanting, and in some instances, the replacement of contaminated soil. The drainage available in many medians will not permit the percolation of water to a sufficient depth; the water, along with the fertilizer used to maintain the plantings, is shed to the storm drains where they become a pollutant to the bay and gulf. FDOT has over the years realized the public safety hazards of landscaping. Trees over four inches in diameter are considered a safety hazard to vehicles. Unfortunately, cars and trucks do not always stay on the marked pavement, and collisions with trees can result in fatal accidents. Clear sight lines are required at intersections and all highway - landscaping designs are required to take this into account. Aggressively growing plants don't always follow the landscape designs and sometimes do obscure a driver's vision. Some streets and shopping centers have become outright hazardous places to drive. Whether these financial, environmental, and public safety cost can be sustained is worth considering. © 2009 Scripps Newspaper Group — Online http: / /www. naplesnews.cominewsl 2009 /dec /09 /peter - gaddy- beauty- has - its - price - collier -r... 12/11/2009 1611 B14 Erery . • Drop Cooms SymWaterpoSium Water Symposium of Florida, Inc., 26314" St. NW. Naples, FL 34120 Water Symposium of Florida, Inc. 2010 Median Project Outline Date: 12 March 2010 A. Introduction B. Water Symposium of Florida, Inc. (WSF) a. 501(c) 3 non - profit organization b. Mission Statement: Educational outreach of information for Water Conservation c. Undertaking demonstration projects and symposiums since 2002. d. Partnering with Big Cypress Basin of the SFWMD C. GreenScape Project a. 2010 project: Road Median "GreenScape" b. Idea created by Commissioner Jim Coletta and Clarence Tears, of the Big Cypress Basin c. Present new planting design for road medians to: i. Improve water conservation ii. Reduce installation costs iii. Reduce Annual maintenance costs iv. Involve the community d. Scoping of Project i. Met w/ Mr. Casalanguida, and Mr. Feder to see idea was plausible to pursue ii. Met w /staff to determine extent of guidelines iii. Meeting w/ Community Organizations, Private businesses to determine interest. e. Current Data i. FY 2010 budget estimates somewhere between $40,000- $57,000 per mile per year for overall maintenance. (see attached) ii. An estimated total of $4 -5 million a year overall for maintenance iii. Estimated if all planned and constructed roads were landscaped, annual costs would be 3 times as much iv. Current gallons of irrigation water pumped is estimated to be around 160 million gallons a year, and could go to around 400 -500 million gallons a year at full build out. 1611 WSF Median Outline 12 March 2010 Page 2 Project proposal i. Project time length 2 years ii. Goal to produce a white paper report that quantifies the differences in the GreenScape design to allow decision makers to evaluate a alternative planting methodology. iii. Pick 3 to 4 locations and set up a demonstration project. iv. Utilize community and local government coordination to implement and maintain the projects. v. Conduct presentations and symposiums to present information as the project progresses. D. REQUEST The Water Symposium of Florida Inc. requests that the BCC consider our project for your support and endorsement, and become a partner with us in this endeavor. The WSF is also looking for partners, contributors, suppliers, landscape contractors, civic associations that can assist with this cause. Contacts: Ms. Lisa Koehler Water Symposium Liason Big Cypress Basin SFWMD (239) 263 -7615 Ext. 7603 IkoehlerC@sfwmd.gov Mr. Michael R. Ramsey Water Symposium of Florida, Inc. Ramsey Inc. Ecological Consulting 239.564.1660 Michael. r.ramsey ramseyinc.net B14' 0 19 WN A. W al..0 sell. 16(1 sia 0 g Na rj 9 0 C.0 C! 40. th E two C2. E ::m.. C/3 qtx in bo .91 C zT I M WIN E E E 0 0 c c d) 0 z 0 U ul u 0 c C C 0 O E 'E a 0 'E a z C3 a- CL Vi 0 0 0 m f U o E E CL CL. V4 ca 19 WN A. W al..0 sell. 16(1 sia 0 g Na rj 9 0 C.0 C! 40. th E two C2. E ::m.. C/3 qtx in bo .91 C zT I M WIN ,c: j w a w ^� 'C .0 t b0'C T v 'O cd 4 p y O O N m � H in All w ,a � aGi �o m °m.�` 3 w � °� ° a .� u •p ^� � � a�i 3 - 0 wH �n a� 3 a � >in v Fc F 3 rn F 9 3 9 0 MrA a_ e a v0 o �b L a\ on z �I cci W C O O W 0 �+ A Vl Z 161 `1 O � 'O Q O (n v w0 8 v� � a � Nz J a G v z O z O O a 0 D � a� W z O O W N N C CI •QO aye v e� u ad��s 2 y O w . O U � wv k7 R A a3 O a "Wr4 e. E Soov >ir c%i -0-/ C. c� E w .a u mN� X00 �m �oA n2 A V aA Q Collier Ave. z W wQ t a � IO O � 'O Q O (n v w0 8 v� � a � Nz J a G v z O z O O a 0 D � a� W z O O W N N C CI •QO aye v e� u ad��s 2 y O w . O U � wv k7 R A a3 O a "Wr4 e. E Soov >ir c%i -0-/ C. c� E w .a u mN� X00 �m �oA n2 A V aA Q wQ t a°�.¢ �^O x O � 'O Q O (n v w0 8 v� � a � Nz J a G v z O z O O a 0 D � a� W z O O W N N C CI •QO aye v e� u ad��s 2 y O w . O U � wv k7 R A a3 O a "Wr4 e. E Soov >ir c%i -0-/ C. c� E w .a u mN� X00 �m �oA n2 A V aA Q 16 I 1 "B 14 IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. AD SORY COMMITTEE Fiala F CE IVE Henning . H I AUG 0 9 2010 May 26, 2010 Coyle C�oietta f'"yc1 of County commissioners Minutes I. The meeting was called to order by Cherryle Thomas at 4:30 p.m. A quorum was established. ll. Attendance Members: Cherryle Thomas, William Deyo, Lucy Ortiz, Andrea Halman, Carrie Williams County: Darryl Richard — Project Manger, Pam Lulich- Manger Landscape Operations, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM, Weldon Walker -Code Enforcement Others: Richard Tindell— JRL, Jim Fritchey —CLM, Bradley Muckel —CRA, Penny Phillippi —CRA, Fred Thomas —CRA, Christie Betancourt-CRA, Michael Ramsey - Water Symposium of FL Inc., Dennis Vasey -Water Symposium of FL Inc., Darlene Lafferty — Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda William Deyo moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second by Carrie Williams. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes: April 28, 2010 William Deyo moved to approve the April 28, 2010 minutes as submitted. Second by Cherryle Thomas. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Code Enforcement - Weldon Walker- Discussed under Vl. B. VI. Transportation Services Report A. Budget — Caroline Soto Darryl Richard reviewed the following Budget items: (See attachments) • Collected Ad Valorem Tax $254,003.21 • Available Capital Outlay $570,199.85 • Open P.O. with Carrot Top Industries $5,610.70 (Banners) Lucy Ortiz arrived 4:39 p.m. B. Project Manager Report—Darryl Richard gave the following information: Misc. comes: Dab: Ibm A: Copies to: 16 1.- I 814 1 (IMM -20) Hwy 29 Cross -Walk Project o Modified Proposal for Design Services by JRL was presented to: (See attached) - Correct the crosswalk(s) issue - Integrate the LDI and RWA roadway concepts Richard Tindell reviewed the JRL Proposal: • The Proposal incorporated Information discussed (with the Committee) at the April 28, 2010 meeting • The Conceptual work features an eco friendly space for Roadway and Median work • Project addresses 3 keys issues - The Bollards & FDOT crosswalks (ramps with drainage obstructions) - FDOT mandated Sight Line issues (safety concern) - Beautification of Main Street and to develop a pedestrian friendly roadway (as an interim fix) Cherryle Thomas inquired if re- grading is scheduled for Hwy 29. Darryl Richard will confirm if State Hwy 29 is scheduled for an asphalt overlay and report to the Committee. Penny Phillippe stated RWA developed an Interim Landscape Plan which addressed safety issues. It was concluded the RWA Interim Landscape Plan will be provided (by CRA) to Staff and JRL for review. Lucy Ortiz moved to accept the modified Proposal by JRL as per Scope of Services with the understanding there is not a change in total cost. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 40. Code Enforcement Weldon Walker reported: o (7) tons of yard waste was collected during a recent Clean Up Event o A second Clean Up Event is scheduled the last week of June 2010 VII. Transportation Maintenance Report-CLM Jim Fritchey reported: • Flowers were installed at the north sign (Hwy 29) • 1St Street (1) trash receptacle is scheduled for relocation (to Coral Palm Villas) • Pressure wash scrubbers do not remove gum - A freeze spray method for Gum removal will be tested VI11. Landscape Architect Report-lRL Design Richard Tindell reviewed a Median Plant List and Field Report. 2 16U1 814 Plant list identified: (See attached) • If the plant is accepted as a Native (by the State) • Drought tolerance (ability to sustain itself on average rainfall) - High (drought situations) - Moderate (normal rain application) - Recommended soil preparation (organic) • Zones - Immokalee Zone 10 A - Miami Zone 10 B Field Report. (See attached) • Photos 2 and 3 - Replacements are required for Damaged Crown of Thorn • Photos 4 and 5 - Exposed wires and bolts on Light Poles • Photo 6 - Missing banners (1st Street) - Dead Plant Material • Photo 8 - Sight Line obstruction Jim Fritchey stated the plant material (Photo 8) is scheduled for removal next week. o Photo 10 - Damaged Bollard requires replacement - Drain is collecting debris • Photo 11 - Grate is collecting dirt and silt • Photos 15 and 16 - Removal of (4) Palm Trees - Flashing barricades are in place for trip zone areas - Planter Irrigation hoses require caps Darryl Richard noted: • Metal rims (around boxes) will be removed • Irrigation will be capped off • Cutouts will be filled with concrete to eliminate a trip hazard Andrea Halman arrived 5:29 p.m. IX. Community Redevelopment Agency Christie Betancourt distributed and reviewed the Immokalee CRA Street Banner Selection form. (See attached) The Committee voted on Banner selections (via form) and the votes were collected by the CRA. 3 1611 B14 Brad Muckel announced planning for Christmas decorations (Main Street) is underway. Cherryle Thomas stated the Seminole Casino expressed interest in making a contribution for Christmas Decorations. It was concluded the CRA will provide information on proposed Christmas Decorations at the June 23, 2010 meeting. X. Old Business -None XI. New Business A. Water Symposium -Mike Ramsey Mike Ramsey gave the following information on Project Road Greenscape: (See attached) Core Concept • Design is based on smart horticulture & ecology • Is a cost savings (present and future) • Improves Stormwater quality runoff Design team • Volunteer Team with 30 years experience • Provide recommendation for Core Planting • Low maintenance cost is incurred • Natural aesthetics are featured • Team will provide a Demo Option (500 feet) - Customized to the Community - Includes Materials, Architecture, Design, and Presentation - Installation of Materials is not include Discussion ensued on a location for the (500 feet) Demo Option. It was concluded the Immokalee Airport (triangle area) was preferred for the Demo option. Carrie Williams moved to approve the Immokalee Airport location for the (Landscaping) plans and (Mike Ramsey) to present (the plans to the Committee for approval.) Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. XII. Public Comment There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:04 PM. I I �. � 1611 814 Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee a" �4 eW�Q�S Cherryle Thoniis, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented ?C or amended The next meeting is June 23, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. One Stop Career Center 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, FL 34142 1611 B14 r Report Date: June 23, 2010 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Immokalee MSTU Project Status (IMM -22) — ACTIVE- Cross -Walks & Sightline Study P. O. #4500118491 (dated 6- 16- 2010); RFP #08 -5060 Annual Landscape Architectural Services 06- 17 -10: Notice to Proceed sent to JRL (IMM -21) — ACTIVE- Immokalee MSTU Irrigation Antenna Tower Project 06- 23 -10: Antenna installation completed by E.B. Simmonds (IMM -20) — ACTIVE- First Street & Hwy 29 Survey Professional Service Proposal for Immokalee MSTU (RWA, Inc. File NO. 100042.00.00) P. O. #4500116931 (dated 04/01/2010) Contract: # 06 -3944 — Annual Fixed Term Surveying & Photometric Services 06- 23 -10: Survey is 40 % -60% completed (IMM -19) — ACTIVE- 1" Street Irrigation/Landscape Refurbishment Project 06- 23 -10: 60% comments submitted to JRL; revised plans pending from JRL (IMM -18) — ACTIVE- Hwy 29 Irrigation/Landscape Refurbishment Project 06- 23 -10: 90% comments submitted to JRL; revised plans pending from JRL (IMM -17) — ACTIVE- "Edgerrin James Sign" Request for Sign indicating "Welcome to Immokalee home of Edgerrin James" for motorist who are traveling to Immokalee 9- 23 -09: CRA to install `sign' and MSTU is to provide for landscaping or amenities around sign (could include lighting) 02- 24 -10: CRA to report on status of `High- school Children' producing sign concepts. (per suggestion made at 01 -27 -10 meeting) 06- 23 -10: CRA coordinating on project. (IMM -16) — ACTIVE- "Miles ahead" Sign Request for Sign indicating "Miles ahead" to Immokalee for motorist who are traveling to Immokalee 06- 23 -10: Traffic Operations is installing 6 signs at various locations (IMM -15) — ACTIVE- ONGOING —LA Maintenance Consulting Work Order for JRL; Landscape Architectural Services 06- 23 -10: Ongoing Services from JRL Design (IMM -11) — ACTIVE- ONGOING — Roadway Maintenance: BID #09 -5264 03- 01 -10: NTP Issued under new Contract #09 -5264, "Immokalee Road MSTU/MSTD Landscape Maintenance" ■ sip R" Nt jk art, Aw LU f �y 1 ,+ tI*.* cc AV 0 co -y YI Y 4 +, • (.i cea NOW i $ • - IFINMM14,14T P y CL �. • ix f r x: LL. �4 a e! 161'1 814 ", • N V W OI • Jr. I�it O V p A �i N+ -01-0- V A as �► t+a N+ O m a V w w A X mmc Ul .� CO w W c s -1 �� -1 >; O ��- mx= O O amnzpc r r.a m—xr r; ca �ymv�xvz "C'OM z m -i p z m m z z m� n >�Dm� --1 -1 m Z Z ?1 „mC p 0 m m zg ca m zz 00 :z >0 �� m m z rtAz z g =�mz M z �rA"'�-ca,a, z0��zz r�r zmW >> Iri rn r it m 't ;u .{ 'r+ z0 -1 r r it c z� o O> m v�n00 m >> z z m z A— m c s o. g p p c) 0 m z m �1 mm yy00 i� m"" mmm C um, �m i —> v < O ff N m 0 tzn z z z fn � (a D� z 2OMO p r 0 p Oz zu, -1 z to > c z stn {0 � �� mzs�!'mzr-ii �pO ��0 47Z�'�aO z�� -Im O m m o•� nm >D va ��70i C ACS Z -1 mz z n A z n m� z N m 0 z m 0 z p 0o z dim ; OA�m m C D; m m N m N 0; Z C m z 0>� >-4 C O � m � z 4 z O r O ,y m c C CO NQm O z A r O -1 mOz m X z mn m y m m z �^ m p � -zi mym c�0y 0 TO rn CA m 5 m m O r m -1 m 0 z 0 m m tzn { Oz m > n O v m N H N N H N H N H N H H N H N N H H H H H H H H H M N H H H H H N H H H H H UpN1 O S O S S S a S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S O S N N H N H H N H N H h 4n (fl 69 Efl 69 Efl Efl Efl EA Ef) (fl Efl [� Hi Eii N N N H H H H M H H H H H W N Cll (II O N N A CO fD V W O O N O WA O O v .OA O tlNi 0 O (O I' ILI N H N H H M H N N H H H H H N H H H H H H N H H N N N H H H H M H H H H H r N H N H H M N N H N H N H H N N N H N H N N H H H N N H H H H H N H H H H H a 3 s to .Q+ Q— pQ Q$ N 0 5A� n y� A w i5 ril V zS {..! J N 3 C ��srn i N i ' l C O W lie -4 8 0 P :z E J v OC Q ■ C' CY CY M r N 1611 814 ��tncncn� m sc c > o �3Z r r7c c " ��mmmmm <<- `��c %° -- 02g33c333 ° 33 3 �m mmoC�C�(� x I s -I mom °°v, cui33 cI � n —C) � A � A ®K lv0 � � �3R.m 0 m' � -,� O sr m 31 � 7 � � 7 7 � 7 7 $• g •'i�e�'A'� v � m• � > > Z c CL tt� 3 � Laos'. _ no33;�� o A< AAAccA�Ac�A�i �AAc �ii��AA�AnAC�c�&�c cIftA�+A A AAAAAAA b. 4%. o�"25�5Z5Z5 25 Z5 SZSZ5��_oa go8COD08 i T O D D J � ip i S i � vvJ J J .... J ?SZ5�i5 J I0W . NNUM110 h T V i i i V i � OD -4 j j �► Oi D N O t00 r O Q o Y' Y c°P po�pp O D D D D w b IQ V -+ v 0 0 0 O N V Ic" +1t �lnm --I co !/fry �m m m �n mrn IM 50- 1 -4 M3:G�-1(�t� -0Lu m 0 co 1 W 3 � N Cft 10 10 3 a & 1 �a ? 111111110 Z a ° ° n* m 1 1 1 ��0� � � � -0n0% (A 69 40 (A 69 Eft 69 EA EA 69 0 69 Ki (fi to EA EA Hi Eft di Ki (A 60 6s 69 61 (fl 69 (A (A oq) 61 Q, PT-) A -i N W A W O A (n Cn O O N N O W (n i (n (D d N O � O O W OD N N N Oo O O (o CD (" O (o -+ Cl O O O 0) v C wo rnONcnorno.irn o o cno ON 3 A (o O O N O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 O Co O -I O (n O 3 .rt d► fA W l fA d/ H H 4�► H� dl f/► H H► H d! N 40 H 6* fA (A O N N i A i i W W m CD V N O V N UI m V W i OD CO W -+ V -+ V A V N W vD N 0D W i V A i A CD N A W W V A O W Q> OD N w V N G1 W O i N co O °f (71 O O -+ tD W, tD P O W O O7 -+ N V O U1 O O O C11 , (D O, m, O O C O in V N En (J( i Of i OD O V A O O $D 0 0 0 0 0 0 IQ C 1810 Q C O O O O O O O Q C O O 0 O O O O 0-16 OD Of Of N O jE m Z v J A V CRA Governing Board Commissioner Donna Fiala Chair Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner James N. Coletta Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Frank Halas State Enterprise Zone Development Agencv Board (EZDAI Richard Rice Chairman Edward "Ski" Olesky Jeffrey Randall Michael Facundo Chief Tom Davis Robert Halman Ex- officio Julio Estremera Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews Ana Salazar 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 111741 �MOKALEE CRA Halos RECEIVED Henning JUL 2 8 2010 i rw voce to call glom! Coyle Coletta - Board of County Commissioners EZONE MEETING AGENDA State Enterprise Zone Development Agency July 21, 2010 - 9:30 to 9:45 AM Career and Service Center of Collier County - Immokalee 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, Florida 34142 A. Call to Order. B. Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum. C. Adoption of Agenda. . D. Communications. E. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. Regular Meeting June 16, 2010 (Enclosure 1) b. Enterprise Zone Reports. i. Enterprise Zone Activities Report for June (Enclosure 2) F. Old Business. G. New Business. a. Building Materials Sales Tax Refund Program Revision, (Enclosure 3) b. New EZDA Advisory Board Vacancy (Enclosure 4) H. Citizen Comments. I. Next Meeting. August 18, 2010 at 9:30 A.M. J. Adjournment. MISC. C,pies ?o: CRA Governin¢ Board Commissioner Donna Fiala Chair Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner James N. Coletta Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Frank Halas State Enterprise Zone Development Aeencv Board (EZDAI Richard Rice Chairman Edward "Ski" Olesky Jeffrey Randall Michael Facundo Chief Tom Davis Robert Halman Ex- officio Julio Estremera Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews Ana Salazar James Wall Eva Deyo Carry Williams 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 A94,611 M'/ t�akis IMMOKALEE CRA Ha►a AUG' 3 1 2010 ----' Henning i The ftce to Call Horne 1 ,oarct of County Commissioners CAN ►e Coletta EZONE MEETING AGENDA State Enterprise Zone Development Agency August 18, 2010 - 9:30 to 9:45 AM Career and Service Center of Collier County - Immokalee 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, Florida 34142 A. Call to Order. B. Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum. C. Adoption of Agenda. D. Communications. E. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. Regular Meeting July 21, 2010 (Enclosure 1) b. Enterprise Zone Reports. i. Enterprise Zone Quarterly Activity Report, April -June (Enclosure 2) F. Old Business. G. New Business. a. Building Materials Sales Tax Refund Program Revisions (Enclosure 3) b. New EZDA Advisory Board Applicants (Enclosure 4) H. Citizen Comments. I. Next Meeting. September 15, 2010 at 9:30 A.M. J. Adjournment. misc. Cares: DO: Copies to: Community Re4evelopment Agency i The Place to Call Home! MINUTES State Enterprise Zone Development Agency June 16, 2010 161EniosurB 15 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Fred N. Thomas, Jr. at 10:25 A.M. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Board /EZDA Members Present: Fred N. Thomas, Floyd Crews, Richard Rice, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Chief Tom Davis, Robert Halman, Edward "Ski" Olesky and Jeffery Randall. Advisory Board /EZDA Members Absent/Excused: Ana Salazar, James Wall, Julio Estremera and Mike Facundo. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Please see the attached sign in sheet. Staff. Penny Phillippi, Bradley Muckel and Christie Betancourt. C. Adoption of Agenda. Action: Mr. Olesky made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Mr. Rice seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. D. Communications. E. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of the Minutes. i. Regular Meeting May 19, 2010 b. Enterprise Zone Reports i. Enterprise Zone Activities May Report Action: Ms. Deyo moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Mr. Rice seconded and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. F. Old Business. G. New Business. a. EZDA Board Application. Action: Mr. Rice made a motion to recommend Ms. Williams to the BCC/CAA, Mr. Randall seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. H. Citizen Comments. I. Next Meeting July 21, 2010 at 8:30 A.M. J. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 A.M. 1 Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency IMMOKA►LEE CRA i The Place to Call Home! Certification of Minutes Approval Form Prepar,E� by: ippi, Executi erector Community redevelopment Agency 1611 815 App ve by: icha ick" Rice, 1PdJ a These Minutes for the June 16, 2010, CRA Advisory Board/EZDA Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory Board /EZDA on July 21, 2010, as presented. * The next joint Advisory Board /EZDA /IMPVC meeting will be held August 18, 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 CPA 1611 015 Community Re4evelopment Agency Enclosure 1 i The Place to Call Home! MINUTES State Enterprise Zone Development Agency July 21, 2010 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Penny Phillippi at 9:55 A.M. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Board/EZDA Members Present: Floyd Crews, Kitchell Snow, Chief Tom Davis, Robert Halman, Edward "Ski" Olesky, Mike Facundo, Julio Estremera, and James Wall. Advisory Board /EZDA Members Absent /Excused: Ana Salazar, Dick Rice, Eva Deyo and Jeffery Randall. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Michael Taylor, Melissa Martinez, Carrie Williams, Jay Roth, Daniel Rosario, Steve Hart, Scott Birge, and Pam Brown. Staff. Penny Phillippi, Bradley Muckel, Rosemary Dillon, and Christie Betancourt. C. Adoption of A eg nda. Action: Mr. Olesky made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Mr. Estremera seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. D. Communications. E. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of the Minutes. i. Regular Meeting June 16, 2010 b. Enterprise Zone Reports i. Enterprise Zone Activities June Report Action: Mr. Wall moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Mr. Olesky seconded and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. F. Old Business. G. New Business. a. Building Materials Sales Tax Refund Program Revisions. Mr. Muckel provided and overview of the Legislative changes to this program and answered Committee members questions. b. EZDA Board Vacancy. Ms. Phillippi reiterated that an opening is currently being advertised for any resident who may wish to serve on the EZDA Board. H. Citizen Comments. I. Next Meeting August 18, 2010 at 9:30 A.M. J. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 A.M. 1 Ci "(A-'t County COMt nunily Redeveloprrmenl Agency MKA.EE CRA i The Place to Call Home! Certification of Minutes Approval Form Prcpat�ed by: j Penny Ph Ykppi. Executive AV cctor lmmoLaJ& Community Redevelopment Agency 1611 B15 Approved by: Richard "Dick" Rice. Chairman These Minutes for the July 21, 2010, CRA Advisory Board /EZDA Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory Board /EZDA on August 18, 2010, as presented. I'he next joint Advisory Board /EZDA /IMPVC meeting will be held September 15. 2010 at 3:30A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5'1' Street in Immokalee. Therc 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 Stich meetings. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Hermon "I'urner Building (Building h), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public lnrormation Department ror distribution. Please call Christie 1-3etal1coUrt. Administrative Assistant, at 239 - 252 -231 3 ror additional inrormation. In accordance Nvith the American with Disabilities Act. persons neecling assistance to participate in any orthese proceedings should contact Christie 13etancourt. Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members ol'the Immokalee Master Plan and Visionin., Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, includin�I but not limited to: EZDA. Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board. Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County I- rousing Authority: etc. In this regard. mattes coming-, before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Conunittccs from time to time. CRA Governine Board Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner James N. Coletta Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Frank Halas CRA Advisory Board & State Enterprise Zone AEency Board Richard "Dick" Rice Chairman Ana Salazar Michael Facundo Carrie Williams Edward "Ski" Olesky Jeffrey Randall Eva Deyo Floyd Crews Kitchell Snow James Wall Julio Estremera Chief Tom Davis Robert Halman (Ex Officio) CRA Staff Penny Phillippi Executive Director Bradley Muckel Project Manager Christie Betancourt Administrative Assistant Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency IMMOKALEE CRA i The Piave to Call Home! MEMORANDUM DATE: August 27, 2010 TO: Sam Tucker, Executive Aide, BCC 16U AUG 3 12010 Board o9'Cou"Y Commissioners FROM: Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency RE: Agendas, Minutes, and Signed Approval Attached are the Agendas, Minutes, and Signed Approval from July - August for your conveyance. Thank you. f Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency 310 Alachua Street, Immokalee, FL 34142 239.252.2313 ` 239.252.6725 (FAX) CRA Governing Board Commissioner Donna Fiala Chair Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner James N. Coletta Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Frank Halas CRA Advisory Board Richard Rice Chairman Edward "Ski" Olesky Jeffrey Randall Michael Facundo Chief Tom Davis Robert Halman Ex- officio Julio Estremera Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews Ana Salazar James Wall Eva Deyo CRA Starr Penny Phillippi Executive Director 239.252.2310 Bradley Muckel Project Manager 239.252.5549 Christie Betancourt Administrative Assistant 239.252.2313 RECEIVED Collier County Community Redevelopment ki JUL 2 8 2010 IMMOKALEE CRA Henn ng A,-H, d of county Commissioners i The Ploce to Call Home 1 Coyle Coletta Community Redevelopment Aeeney Advisory Committee Aeenda July 21, 2010 - 8:30 A.M. Career and Service Center of Collier County - Immokalee 750 South 5th Street, Immokalee, Florida 34142 A. Call to Order. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. C. Announcements. a. CRA Advisory Board Chairman resignation — Fred Thomas (Enclosure 1) D. Adoption of A eg nda. E. Communications. a. Public Notices F. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. CRA Advisory Board Meeting June 16, 2010 (Enclosure 2) b. RWA, Inc. i. July Report and Invoice (Enclosure 3) c. CDM, Inc. i. July Report and Invoice (Enclosure 4) d. Commercial Fagade Improvement Program Report, June (Enclosure 5) G. Old Business. a. Master Plan — update b. Stormwater Master Plan — update i. Stormwater Detention Pond Land Purchase (Enclosure 6) c. Ninth Street Public Plaza — update d. Airport Park Expansion Project - update e. County Code Enforcement Monthly Highlights — Kitchell Snow H. New Business. a. New CRA Advisory Board Vacancy (Enclosure 7) b. Jackson Labs Endorser Meeting, July 27, 2010 (Enclosure 8) c. SW Florida Green Futures Expo and Energy Options Conference (Enclosure 9) d. 2010 Brownfield Communities Network Conference (Enclosure 10) e. Collier County MPO LRTP Meeting, July 28, 2010 (Enclosure 11) f. 2010 FRA Conference (Enclosure 12) g. Immokalee MSTU /CRA Memorandum of Understanding I. Citizen Comments. J. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting August 18, 2010 at 8:30 A.M. K. Adjournment. * The next Advisory Board/EZDA Board meeting will be held August 18, 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 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. Corre ate: h D (;TJItem +es ?o: CRA Governine Board Commissioner Donna Fiala Chair Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner James N. Coletta Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Frank Halas CRA Advisory Board Richard Rice Chairman Edward "Ski" Olesky Jeffrey Randall Michael Facundo Chief Tom Davis Robert Halman Ex -officio Julio Estremera Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews Ana Salazar James Wall Eva Deyo Carry Williams 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 1611 B I IMMOKALEE CRA RECEIVED i The Ploce to Coll Home AUG 3 1 2010 Community Redevelopment Aeency Advisory Committee Aeenda Board of County Commissioners August 18, 2010 - 8:30 A.M. Fiala Career and Service Center of Collier County - Immokalee HalaS 750 South 5th Street, Immokalee, Florida 34142 Henning A. Call to Order. Coyle B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Coletta C. Announcement. a. Appointment of Carrie Williams D. Adoption of A eg nda. E. Communications. a. Public Notices F. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. CRA Advisory Board Meeting July 21, 2010 (Enclosure 1) b. RWA, Inc. i. July Monthly Activity Report and Invoice (Enclosure 2) c. CDM, Inc. i. July Monthly Activity Report and Invoice (Enclosure 3) d. Commercial Fagade Improvement Program Report, June (Enclosure 4) G. Old Business. a. Stormwater Master Plan — update b. Immokalee MSTU /CRA Memorandum of Understanding c. Immokalee Loop Road — Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida d. County Code Enforcement Monthly Highlights — Kitchell Snow e. FRA 2010 Conference — update H. New Business. a. MPO CMS "Box Funds" grant proposal for illuminated crosswalks (Enclosure 5) b. CRA Advisory Board Applicants (Enclosure 6) I. Citizen Comments. J. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting September 15, 2010 at 8:30 A.M. K. Adjournment. * The next Advisory Board/EZDA Board meeting will be held September 15, 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 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. Disc. Corres: Date: Item #: S ,D: Community Redevelopm nt Agency 16 11 Etolr6 � I The Place to Call Home! MINUTES Immokalee Local Redevelopment Agency June 16, 2010 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Fred N. Thomas, Jr. at 8:35 A.M. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Board /EZDA Members Present: Fred N. Thomas, Floyd Crews, Richard Rice, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Chief Tom Davis, Robert Halman, Edward "Ski" Olesky and Jeffery Randall. Advisory Board /EZDA Members Absent /Excused: Ana Salazar, James Wall, Julio Estremera and Mike Facundo. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Please see the attached sign in sheet. Staff. Penny Phillippi, Bradley Muckel and Christie Betancourt. C. Adoption of A enda. Ms. Phillippi announced the additions to the agenda as shown below. F.d.3 — Community Garden Committee Report FAA — Green Immokalee Committee Report G. c. — Christie Betancourt 10 Year Service Award G. d. — Letter of Support for Jackson Labs G. e. - The Florida Planning and Zoning Association Award Action: Mr. Olesky made a motion to adopt the Agenda, with the additions, Mr. Rice seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. D. Communications. E. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of the Minutes. i. CRA Meeting May 19, 2010 b. Commercial Fagade Improvement Program May Monthly Report Action: Mr. Olesky moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Mr. Randall seconded and the Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote. F. Old Business. a. Master Plan and Interim LDC Update. i. Master Plan Transmittal /Adoption Hearing Schedule. Ms. Phillippi announced that the IAMP will be heard by the BCC on June 23, 2010 at 1:00 P.M. for transmittal to DCA. A response from DCA is expected by September 3, 2010. ii. Interim LDC Report. Ms. Phillippi announced that the Interim LDC has been adopted by the BCC and is now in effect. Citizen Comments: 1. The omission of the intensity and density blending from the IAMP was questioned. Bob Mulhere (via conference call) explained that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) had removed the language because they felt more data would be required to justify the policy. 2. The inclusion of line (d) to Policy 6.1.7 was questioned. Bob Mulhere explained that the line was added during the final public hearing of the CCPC at the request of a citizen. 1611816 " 3. Loop Road on page 5 was questioned asking why the IAMP supports the construction of a road around Immokalee. Mr. Mulhere explained that the language was inserted by the Collier County Transportation Department and the language, as written, will allow for greater flexibility for arterial roads to be built to and from Immokalee. Action: Mr. Snow made a motion to send a letter to the BCC requesting that the IAMP be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs without line (d) in Policy 61.7. Mr. Crews seconded the motion and it passed by majority vote (Mr. Thomas voted no, Mr. Randall abstained saying he didn't know anything about the issue). Mr. Thomas stated that he did not believe Advisory Board members know what they are voting on and provided an explanation. The Executive Director asked that all members in favor of the motion to raise their hands. Six members raised their hands, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Randall did not raise their hands. Action: Mr. Randall made a motion to cut off further discussion on the matter. Mr. Snow seconded the motion and it passed by majority vote. b. The Stormwater Master Plan. Ms. Phillippi stated that the Project Manager, Brad Muckel, conducted a "Kick- off' meeting for the $413,946 contract to get the Stormwater Master Plan "shovel ready ". Brad Muckel provided an update on the activity with the Stormwater Master Plan. C. County Code Enforcement Monthly Highlights in Immokalee. Kitchell Snow reported on the upcoming community clean up on July 17, 2010 in the Immokalee Drive area near Esperanza Place. He asked that Advisory Board members come to the clean up to show support for the program. d. Misc. Updates. i. Street Banners Design Results. Ms. Phillippi announced that the votes from the MSTU and CRA Advisory Board have been tallied. With the exception of the iTECH and the vegetables we now have final pictures with which to place an order. Christie Betancourt reviewed the results. ii. Immokalee Christmas Decoration Design Review. The CRA Project Manager reviewed the assembled variety of Christmas decorations for Immokalee. Brad discussed possibilities and cost, seeking approval to split the costs of the decorations with the MSTU. Action: Mr. Rice made a motion to authorize the CRA to split the cost of Christmas decorations with the MSTU up to $20, 000 and to create a sub - committee to assist Mr. Muckel with the product selection. Mr. Randall seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. iii. Community Garden. The Community Garden Committee under the Chairmanship of Robert Halman met during the past week and has a report. It was agreed that, in partnership with Code Enforcement, the owners would be permitted to harvest the crop. He will not be allowed to replant because agriculture is not permitted in areas zoned residential. 2 16I T B16 iv. Green Immokalee Committee. Brad Muckel made a report for the Green Immokalee Committee reporting that the committee is concentrating on re -use water and will attempt to create incentives for construction in upcoming Committee meetings. G. New Business. a. CRA Advisory Board Application. Ms. Phillippi asked the Advisory Board to find Enclosure 5, an application from Ms. Carrie Williams for a seat on the CRA Advisory Committee. Staff asked for a motion to accept and recommend this applicant to the BCC /CRA for approval. Action: Mr. Rice made a motion to recommend Ms. Williams to the BCC /CRA, Mr. Randall seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. b. Advisory Committee Service Award Recipients. Ms. Phillippi announce that at the June 22"d meeting of the BCC, three Advisory Board members who will receive a Service Award; Fred N. Thomas, Jr. for 15 years Eva Deyo for 5 years, and Chief Tom Davis for 5 years of service on the CRA Advisory Committee. C. Christie Betancourt Service Award for 10 years as a County Employee. d. Letter of Support for Jackson Labs. The Advisory Board exchanged a brief discussion, as to the type of support to send to the BCC for Jackson Labs. Action: Mr. Rice made a motion to instruct staff to create a boiler plate letter to provide to local businesses to ask them to offer their support for Jackson Labs. Mr. Randall seconded the motion. The item was discussed further. The motion was amended to send a letter to the BCC to notify the BCC of the CRA Advisory Committee's support of Jackson Labs. Mr. Randall approved the amendment to his second. The motion passed by majority vote. e. The Florida Planning and Zoning association Award. Ms. Phillippi reported that the Immokalee CRA is the recipient of an award from the Florida Planning and Zoning Association for the Immokalee Public Realm/Town Design and the Form -Based Guidelines. The Executive Director travelled to Sarasota to collect the award last Friday. H. Citizen Comments. I. Next Meeting July 21, 2010 at 8:30 A.M. J. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 A.M. 3 June 16, 2010 Public Name E-mail / Affiliation oe S 61-.111816 Phone f, ceyii 3I 76) - 1 %WC-.#CWW Luc li�k- b/oc&zob((o Qo/, cow 2 3q -6, 1 V3 'Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency IMMOKALEE CRA I the Place to CaN Nome Certification of Minutes Approval Form ncy 1611 B16 These Minutes for the June 16, 2010, CRA Advisory Board/EZDA Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory Board/EZDA on July 21, 2010, as presented. * The next joint Advisory Board/EZDA/IMPVC meeting will be held August 18, 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 Community Redevelopment Agency 310 Alachua Street, Immokalee, FL 34142 239.252.2313 "' 239.252.6725 (FAX) Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency 1611816 IMMOKALEE CRA i The Place to caul Home! CRA Governing Board MEMORANDUM Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner DATE: July 27, 2010 Donna Fiala Commissioner TO: Sam Tucker, Executive Aide, BCC James N. Coletta Commissioner FROM: Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant - Fred W. Coyle Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency Commissioner Frank Halas RE: Agendas, Minutes, and Signed Approval CRA Advisory Board & Attached are the Agendas, Minutes, and Signed Approval from June - July for State Enterprise Zone Agency Board your conveyance. Richard "Dick" Rice Chairman Thank you. Ana Salazar Michael Facundo Edward "Ski" Olesky Jeffrey Randall Eva Deyo Floyd Crews Kitchell Snow James Wall Julio Estremera Chief Tom Davis Robert Halman (Ex Officio) CRA Staff Penny Phillippi Executive Director Bradley Muckel Project Manager Christie Betancourt Administrative Assistant Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency 310 Alachua Street, Immokalee, FL 34142 239.252.2313 "' 239.252.6725 (FAX) IMKALEE C Community Re4evelopment Agency I The Place to Call Home! MINUTES Immokalee Local Redevelopment Agency July 21, 2010 In ko s u!.I 816 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Penny Phillippi at 8:45 A.M. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory Board /EZDA Members Present: Floyd Crews, Kitchell Snow, Chief Tom Davis, Robert Halman, Edward "Ski" Olesky, Mike Facundo, Julio Estremera, and James Wall. Advisory Board /EZDA Members Absent /Excused: Ana Salazar, Dick Rice, Eva Deyo and Jeffery Randall. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Others Present: Michael Taylor, Melissa Martinez, Carrie Williams, Jay Roth, Daniel Rosario, Steve Hart, Scott Birge, and Pam Brown. Staff. Penny Phillippi, Bradley Muckel, Rosemary Dillon, and Christie Betancourt. C. Announcements. Ms. Phillippi announced that Fred Thomas, Jr. has resigned from the EZDA and therefore the CRA. D. Adoption of Agenda. Ms. Phillippi requested an addition to the agenda: H. New Business Item h. Immokalee Housing Study. Action: Mr. Olesky made a motion to adopt the Agenda, with the additions, Mr. Crews seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. E. Communications. Public Notices and FRA Notes were passed around in the Communications Folder. F. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of the Minutes. i. CRA Meeting June 16, 2010 b. RWA, Inc. i. July Report and Invoice C. CDM, Inc. i. July Report and Invoice d. Commercial Fagade Improvement Program Report. Action: Mr. Olesky made a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda, Chief Davis seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. G. Old Business. a. Master Plan Update. Ms. Phillippi informed the Committee that the Master Plan had been conveyed to the Florida Department of Community Affairs as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A response is expected from DCA in mid - September and the Master Plan should be final sometime in January 2011. b. Stormwater Master Plan Stormwater Detention Pond Land Purchase. Mr. Muckel provided a status of the stormwater project. Ms. Phillippi provided a broad overview and plans to partner with SWFWMD. 1611816 Action: Mr. Olesky made a motion to recommend the purchase of the parcels at 9th and Eustis to the CRA for the purpose of a stormwater retention pond. Mr. Crews seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. C. Ninth Street Plaza Update Ms. Phillippi and Mr. Muckel provided an update on the cleaning up of the parcel, removal of the tower and plans for a chain link fence. d. Airport Park Expansion Update Ms. Phillippi informed the Committee that the entry road and much of the fencing at the park has been removed. The CCAA will reuse the fencing on another part of the airport. She also informed them that a Mr. Marvin Courtright has sent a letter of intent to build an aviation museum on the site where the park is located. Ms. Phillippi sent him a letter stating that the BCC and the CCAA intend to honor the lease agreement with the Park and Recreation Department. The park will be completed within 90 days. e. County Code Enforcement Highlights Mr. Kitchell Snow stated that the week end clean up on El Paso Drive in Immokalee resulted in 30.6 tons of refuge being removed from the community. He thanked Mr. Muckel and others who came to provide assistance. H. New Business. a. New CRA Advisory Board Vacancy. Ms. Phillippi stated that the vacant position for the Advisory Committee is being advertized until July 29th and that anyone wishing to serve on the Committee can go on line to complete the application. Ms. Melissa Martinez has already completed an application. b. Jackson Labs Endorser Meeting, July 27, 2010. Attention was called to the meeting announcement in the packet for the meeting on July 27th. Five Advisory Committee members stated that they do not support the Jackson Labs deal. Ms. Phillippi reminded the Committee that they had voted to send a letter of support at their last meeting but that the discussion was very confusing. Mr. Wall stated that according to Roberts Rules of Order, only the person who made the motion can change it. Dick Rice made the motion and is on vacation. The issue was not resolved. C. SW Florida Green Futures Expo and Energy Options Conference. Mr. Muckel discussed the conference and stated that he and Dick Rice Attended last year. Mr. Muckel will attend again this year. Mr. Wall will attend for his employer. d. 2010 Brownfield Communities Network Conference. Ms. Phillippi called the Committee's attention to Enclosure 9 asking for approval to send Brad Muckel to the Conference. Action: Mr. Crews made a motion to allow Mr. Muckel to attend the Brownfield Conference, Mr. Olesky seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. e. Collier County MPO LRTP Meeting, July 28, 2010. The up- coming meeting to discuss the Long Range Transportation Plan was discussed briefly. All members of the committee and the public were encouraged to attend. 0 1611 P16 00 Enclosure 1 f. 2010 FRA Conference. Mr. Phillippi announced the October FRA meeting, asked all members who wish to attend to leave their name with Ms. Betancourt as soon a possible. She asked for a recommendation to the CRA to ask approval for staff and Committee members to attend the FRA Conference. Action: Mr. Crews made a motion to recommend to the CRA that staff and Committee members be approved for travel to the FRA Conference. Captain Davis seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. g. Immokalee MSTU /CRA Memorandum of Understanding. Mr. Muckel asked if it would be possible to draft a Memorandum of Understanding with the MSTU to clearly outline the responsibilities of each entity in the partnership for use with activities such as the banners, Christmas decorations and the Eddgrin James signs. Action: Mr. Crews made a motion to instruct staff to draft a MOU with the MSTU for clarification purposes. Mr. Olesky seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. h. Housing Condition Study Ms. Phillippi and Mr. Snow discussed the possibility of partnering with the Immokalee Housing Collaborative to execute a comprehensive housing study and to bring back a proposal for the study. Action: Mr. Crews made a motion to approve the concept of a Housing Study and to bring a proposal to the next meeting. Captain Davis seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. I. Citizen Comments. J. Next Meeting August 18, 2010 at 8:30 A.M. K. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 A.M. Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency IMMOKALEE CRA i The Place to Call Horne! Certification of Minutes Approval Form ;? by: ippi, Executive) �/ector Community Redevelopment Agency 1611916 Approved by: Richard "Dick" Rice, Chairman These Minutes for the July 21, 2010, CRA Advisory Board/EZDA Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory Board/EZDA on August 18, 2010, as presented. * The next joint Advisory Board /EZDA/IMPVC meeting will be held September 15, 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. SEP 0 2 2010 1611 Fiats 17/ Halas Henning Coyle Coletta ioard of Coun9Y COmmip-SAISLES OF CAPRI FIRE/RESCUE ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES MAY 69 2010 ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE STATION ATTENDEES: Emilio Rodriguez, Fire Chief Kirk Colvin. Chairman Jim Gault, Advisory Board Member Ted Decker, Advisory Board Member Joe Langkawel. Board Member Barbara Shea, Minutes Preparer I. CALL TO ORDER Kirk Colvin opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. 11. OLD BUSINESS A. Chief's Report. B. April 2010 Advisory Board Meeting Minutes. 1. Copy of Minutes distributed. 2. Motion to approve April 2010 Minutes by Ted Decker. a. Motion seconded by Kirk Colvin. b. Motion carried unanimously. c. Minutes signed off by Chairman Colvin. C. ICFD Dock Project. 1. Waiting on final comments from DEP. 2. Next step will be to obtain bids for the dock construction. D. ICFD FY 11 Budget. 1. Budget was approved as submitted by the County Manager. 2. New property values will be received from OMB on 06/01/10. E. 04/19/10 Response letter from Mr. Summers regarding FYI I IT expenses. 1. IT costs are still under review by Mr. Summers. Mist Co: 2. ICFD has not yet removed any computers. Correa : 2. 3. ICFD is waiting for further direction from Mr. Summers.: 4. No changes have been made to the allocated IT expenses of $18,900. I Item s: Copies to: 1611 Big 5. ICFD would like to take 2 computers off of the IT network. 6. Joe Langkawel would like to send an additional letter to Mr. Summers. a. To be sent in 30 days if no further information is received. b. To include, "When is the date we can turn off computers ?" III. NEW BUSINESS A. Plans completed for the 05/08/10 Great Dock Canoe Race. 1. Medflight will be stationed on the Station 90 helipad. 2. Six ALS boats (incl. boats from other fire districts) will be utilized. 3. Temporary floating docks will be used on Keewaydin Island. 4. The driveway to the Station 90 parking lot will be blocked off. 5. Beach access behind Station 90 will be roped off. 6. Kayak launching behind Station 90 will not be permitted. B. The next ICFD Advisory Board meeting will be held June 10, 2010. IV. ADJOURNMENT A. Motion to adjourn the meeting by Jim Gault at 6:55 p.m. 1. Motion seconded by Kirk Colvin. 2. Motion carried unanimously. Approved:�� Date: Off, b�-D 1 0 161 1B'181 tiGOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE Fiala 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Halas RECEIVED Naples, FI 34104 Henning AUG 1 1 2010 Coyle July 15, 2010 Coletta Board of County Commissioners AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: May 20, 2010 V. Budget Report — Caroline Soto VI. Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM VII. Landscape Architect's Report — McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report B. Reuse Mixing Chamber C. Lighting Project Update VIII. Transportation Operations Report- Darryl Richard A. Project Manager's Report B. Review of the To Do List IX. Housekeeping Item X. Committee Reports XI. Old Business A. Fence Quotes XII. New Business XIII. Public Comments XIV. Adjournment The next meeting is August 19, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. Misc. Corres: Collier County Transportation Building Date: 2885 2885 Horseshoe Drive South ' Naples, FL 34104 Item #: 1611 B16 Ittl GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Fiala . —�-- -- Halas Naples, Fl 34104 Henning � — — August 19, 2010 Coyle t., I Coletta AUG 2 4 2010 AGENDA nun+, a ut Gounty Go�rnissioners I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: July 15, 2010 V. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera VI. Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM VII. Landscape Architect's Report — McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report B. Reuse Mixing Chamber —Warren Street C. Doral Bridge Project D. Lighting Study — Pebble Beach VIII. Transportation Operations Report-Darryl Richard A. Project Manager's Report B. Review of the To Do List IX. Housekeeping Item X. Committee Reports XI. Old Business XII. New Business XIII. Public Comments XIV. Adjournment The next meeting is September 16, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. Collier County Transportation Building Misc. Corres: 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Date: Item 0: C ^;pies to: I E�r 16 r'19-18 GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU RECEIVED AUG 1 1 2010 Board of County Commissioners ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FI 34104 May 20, 2010 Minutes Fiala Halas Henning -- Coyle -- Coletta ----- I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 4:00 P.M. II. Attendance: Members: Robert Slebodnik, Tony Branco, Kathleen Dammert, David Larson, Jennifer Tanner County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Caroline Soto — Budget Analyst, Tessie Sillery- Operations Coordinator Others: Mike McGee -McGee & Associates, Jim Fritchey -CLM, Darlene Lafferty— Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add: X11. A. Davey Tree Proposal Vlll. C. Fence Quotes IX. A. Summer Meetings Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes: April 15, 2010 Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the April 15, 2010 minutes as submitted. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. V. Budget Report — Caroline Soto • Collected Investment Interest $2,612.99 • Available Improvements General $89,688.18 A. Caroline Soto announced she was reassigned to the CAT Department and Gloria Herrera is her replacement as Budget Analyst. Robert Slebodnik commended Caroline Soto on a job well done. VI. Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM Jim Fritchey reported the following: o Basic Maintenance is being conducted o Bougainvillea has a Torpedo Grass issue Misc. Corres: 0 1 Royal Palm (front entrance) requires replacement Date: item #: Copies to: 1611 X18 Mike McGee requested CLM prune the red Crown of Thorn (Cart Crossing and Pebble Beach.) Robert Slebodnik inquired on the progress of the Xanadu. Jim Fritchey responded: • Fertilization was conducted • Required Replacements are underway Discussion took place on replacement Flowers at the Front Entrance. Darryl Richard will email suggested Plant Material images to the Committee for review. VII. Landscape Architect's Report - McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report Mike McGee reported CLM was requested to prune around the (decorative) Light Fixtures. B. Reuse Mixing Chamber Darryl Richard gave the following information on the Bid Tabulation for Irrigation Water Reuse Renovation: (See attached) • The Project was pulled from the BCC Agenda of May 11, 2010 • Commissioner Coyle suggested performing Value Engineering on the Project prior to presenting to the BCC for approval • Value Engineering will reduce costs without sacrificing quality • Hannula Proposal (cost reduction) $1,785.00 (See attached) Mike McGee noted the total cost reduction is $2615.00 as Bid Tabulation Line Item 9 ($830.00) is not required. Robert Slebodnik moved to accept the Value Engineering Study which will result in a savings of $2,615.00 over the original Bid that was award to Hannula. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. C. Lighting Project Update Mike McGee reported Analysis information is being collected. Staff will distribute the Analysis (CD) to the Committee. He gave a brief summary: 0 25 ft mounting Pole height was suggested 0 2 Options for Light installation Median installation - 13 double Fixtures required - Cost Estimate $149,325.00 Outside Installation (in front of houses) - 26 single arm Fixtures required - Cost Estimate $208,415.00 2 1611618 • All Electrical power is located behind the houses - Easements exist between the lot lines of all houses - Project is a boring installation • Existing Meter cabinet is located near Baltusrol (if viable) Discussion took place concerning the visual impact of the proposed Lighting and installing Lighting in darker areas of the Community. The Committee reaffirmed installation of accent lighting was the original intent for the Lighting Project. After much discussion Robert Slebodnik summarized the following: • Pebble Beach Blvd was designated to initiate the Lighting Project • The Lighting Project is under Study • Project is a long range plan which may take years to accomplish - Allows sufficient time to accrue Monies (Budget) for the Lighting Project VIII. Transportation Operations Report - Darryl Richard reviewed the following reports: (See attachments) A. Project Managers Report (L -48) Modifications to Doral Circle Bridge • Install 4 lights • Install Brick material similar to Hibiscus bridge • Haskins is under County Contract with Storm Water - Storm Water is not able to add an MSTU beautification component to their Project Scope • Construction drawings are required - McGee and Associates Quote was presented $4,104.00 (See attached) David Larson expressed concerns with awarding a bid to Haskins Electric. He recommended obtaining additional quotes. Jennifer Tanner moved to approve McGee & Associates Proposal for $4,104.00 for the work on Lighting for the Bridge Project on Dora/ Circle. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Darryl Richard submitted Quote for reimbursement cost $329.55 by McGee and Associates. (See attached) David Larson moved to allow $329.55 for the reimbursement cost (McGee and Associates) on the Warren Street Mixing Chamber. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. B. Review of the To Do List -None (See attached) C. Fence Quotes 1611 18 Darryl Richard reviewed quotes: (See attached) Ye Olde Foundry o Bid $5,100.00 o Local Vendor o Established 1984 Lykins Signtek o Bid $5,300.00 During discussion the Committee expressed interest in reviewing product samples or photo (of work) by Ye Olde Foundry. It was noted the Ye Olde Foundry installed the picket fence on Golden Gate Parkway (at 1 -75 overpass.) Robert Slebodnik reminded Staff the Fence installation is for (1) side of the road as the Committee perceived the canal view is aesthetically pleasing. IX. Housekeeping Item A. Summer Meetings- Discussed under X11. A. X. Committee Reports -None XI. Old Business -None XII. New Business A. Davey Tree Proposal Pam Lulich gave information on the Tree Keeper Program: • The County applied for a Grant to purchase the Program - Program will be maintained by the County • Quick reference program • Give the value of Trees • Lists predominate Trees • Record health of Trees Summer Meetings Discussion ensued concerning the June meeting. The Committee and Staff were in agreement,to cancel the June meeting. XIII. Public Comments -None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 5:35 P.M. rd .1 1 16111' 4B18 Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee ell'o, obert siebanik, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on (r, - 10 , as presented or amended The next meeting is July 15, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 il m g g d W O T b N j o 40 1611 'B18 A A A W W W W W W W W W ..... N N N N N + + + + + + + ++ N+ O m O V O) N A A W N O CO co V 0 N A W N+ O CO O J O) N A W N+ O Ommm v0m�0�� Z(Am - 11ZnC) -i1 �7ZZ200 - ltncncnb�vvb��mxzxmZxrzcinmoz��Iz °G��zzbzb<cmm -T+r� P«<T11 T� DO��P�cZi>ZZS2 �D��SCyicmi25m �T � m m m m m � m O N� m G� O � Z D— o 004 � m T T C 0, 0, x i y0 Cm �t�71��4DD mmZoqOvn6o xlmnOOmM mn�m�aD G�ZOO C) -�Z X�m0mZV {Oyj?ZOT� vn�- ZiasOr yMS OZZ ��OO D Z -<G' mZ W mmoz wZ* 0nxym moo OuH> o mmo,zmm ZZ �(� V Z m ZOC)Z mZ r^mm -4 MM Z �C-iD mOr,�MjZ�� mzz O O m m mOyZZ S D m �_ mm�(v c mcim 0r mm � � _(n zm � r�Z W Zmp� a-q m (no Dnn CAS OO m O m Cl) c, � m S cn O -Di (� D n 0 0 j O m D C, 0 rN IMIMIfA (fll"160 6A14^1- 1M1-14*1E0 f9 6A 69 fA 6A (A 6A189 EA (A 60 fA fA 61) fA'MI(4I69 f9 fA EA fA16O&A fA EA fA fA (A Cn OOD e d N � C < C 8 O d m O N CEO O Q> J N CN ) W W ONi OD Cn O H I O O W O O J ,O l O O O O W 0 8 0 O O 0 CO n O O O O O O w O O O O O O j C 0 8 O O O O O O O O O O O + O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O P O O pp O O O O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (A (A M (A (}) N (A N fA N 60 EA 69 69 69 69 EA 69 fA 69 6A (A 1i0 6f 69 p A W A N A co O Cn A C(pp 0 V Cn to m N A In V A (O O W O co i CT m i cn w W CT OD CP V O 69 fA M fA EA 40 4A 40 40 40 fA fA fA fA fA 60 (A (A 63 fA EA fA (A 69 EA (A (A N _ O O O O O O NO ttNpp f�n N (O OT N W + Cn V+ N A :-. Cn A+ V OD (b Q) OD d V O Oo V U1 W O � Cn 0) bo Cn A Cn W W Cn V W W Cn O O CD V O O ++ W N 0 0 Cn 0 Cn (n N Cn O O II I NO W0O O N Cn N " 00 O 69 69 N fA M A w IfA [) 69 fA fA 6A fA 69 fA fA w fA (A fA E9 W N OI O (D N _y®o1 CC�� t0 0 V A V + N Cn N Cn O �O O N OD A CO W 0 0 N A N w AA 00 O W N O O N Cn A V N CO w O N 0 (n O O j D " O O) CO O O tp 3 j O (� O pppp tC�.7 OD (b O N N W O O O N Cn Cn V Cn O O O) q O O A W W 0 0 0 0 w A 0 0 Cn A O 0 0 + p p 0 0 tJ 0 0 0 O C>D + A OD v 0 0 0 0 N O v co tT O 00 O O O O V (n A g (A S2 T-n T-n 000< N 7 7 7 7 f) _ ID C g ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 no °' m OOOOG�O n C) 3 0 CD N N N N cD 0 '� y (p m 7 (0/1 tfDn N Jc a s 3( N O. Fzi 0cymmmmmm m 0o.mm lZ �?,O1°1mm a o 0 9D 9D 9D 9D9Dm (gym nn o ° x 0 0 2 N >,r CD DDDDDD � Ov°» v m m m (o (o of ai c c d O O (D N y N N N y 7 g N a» f1 C CD y y N y N y N y r CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 y O C 0 C C C 05 61 N O 9 ° d 3 v m coom as =0 (o C = y y y 0 2 9 CD 2 AA A A t A A A A A A A A A A A A 9 A A A A A A A A Q to �T Cn C1i (n Cn (n CT CT Cn Cn Cn U) V1 Cn (T Cf) fn O( Cn CT Cn w W Cn -4 O OD W a O Cn Cn N j A v o 7 'O O n O N Cn A W N N C O n A V V V V V W M N Cn OD (n A 0 () K) (2 CO n (O Cn OD N C0 _ O O N N b W W O Cn m V N (O (0 A 00'< O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 00 8090890 o CD OD T T CA 00 T OD Cn (O O V (O co , OD (O 7C Z ZZ cn(n?CACnChlncncnwmm ZZAG,Z wv)wcnci wb) ?��a D DD niv°D�i�i�i�i�i�i�cwnwDDOD D �cooiw cnnApCCDDcoo DDD O Cl) Cn 0 0 0 0 0 0 O V Cl) CO N W N Cn O) O (O O. A <�< N aocnS mTDCaCCCC��y3c�OVm TTTT� Om�� 7 n D D D D (°i n N T (wJ W G c CD �_ N N CO C fn co A GA7) Cn O to O a w o o ON) A 0, p °O o a (A fA fA 69 (A fA O O O C 00 pO v ii Z a d d m o CD O (D d Q f° C- O O O 69 fA fA 69 (A EA 69 69 69 69 fA N N (D n Cl co �"� Q fD a (On co n m Cn f 0 C1 O 0 O O (D z -0 . x 0 3 t CD (n N 3 7 0 < 7 CD d fA (A fA 6A (A 69 66 fA fA 69 EA 69 EA to 6A 64 69 (A EA EA 69 69 (0 69 EA 69 fA EA 69 69 EA A .�i EA fA 69 6A EA fA (A fA ffl EA 6A O (D N _y®o1 CC�� t0 0 V A V + N Cn N Cn O �O O N OD A CO W 0 0 N A N w AA 00 O W N O O N Cn A V N CO w O N 0 (n O O j D " O O) CO O O tp 3 j O (� O pppp tC�.7 OD (b O N N W O O O N Cn Cn V Cn O O O) q O O A W W 0 0 0 0 w A 0 0 Cn A O 0 0 + p p 0 0 tJ 0 0 0 O C>D + A OD v 0 0 0 0 N O v co tT O 00 O O O O V (n A g (A S2 T-n T-n 000< N 7 7 7 7 f) _ ID C g ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 no °' m OOOOG�O n C) 3 0 CD N N N N cD 0 '� y (p m 7 (0/1 tfDn N Jc a s 3( N O. Fzi 0cymmmmmm m 0o.mm lZ �?,O1°1mm a o 0 9D 9D 9D 9D9Dm (gym nn o ° x 0 0 2 N >,r CD DDDDDD � Ov°» v m m m (o (o of ai c c d O O (D N y N N N y 7 g N a» f1 C CD y y N y N y N y r CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 y O C 0 C C C 05 61 N O 9 ° d 3 v m coom as =0 (o C = y y y 0 2 9 CD 2 AA A A t A A A A A A A A A A A A 9 A A A A A A A A Q to �T Cn C1i (n Cn (n CT CT Cn Cn Cn U) V1 Cn (T Cf) fn O( Cn CT Cn w W Cn -4 O OD W a O Cn Cn N j A v o 7 'O O n O N Cn A W N N C O n A V V V V V W M N Cn OD (n A 0 () K) (2 CO n (O Cn OD N C0 _ O O N N b W W O Cn m V N (O (0 A 00'< O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 00 8090890 o CD OD T T CA 00 T OD Cn (O O V (O co , OD (O 7C Z ZZ cn(n?CACnChlncncnwmm ZZAG,Z wv)wcnci wb) ?��a D DD niv°D�i�i�i�i�i�i�cwnwDDOD D �cooiw cnnApCCDDcoo DDD O Cl) Cn 0 0 0 0 0 0 O V Cl) CO N W N Cn O) O (O O. A <�< N aocnS mTDCaCCCC��y3c�OVm TTTT� Om�� 7 n D D D D (°i n N T (wJ W G c CD �_ N N CO C fn CACS,D O) (b A OOo V CD < N (/) (/) (/) y in iA VI fD LD co w W ON) A 0, p m dy y fA EA fA 6A (A (A fA fA 69 (A fA O (D N _y®o1 CC�� t0 0 V A V + N Cn N Cn O �O O N OD A CO W 0 0 N A N w AA 00 O W N O O N Cn A V N CO w O N 0 (n O O j D " O O) CO O O tp 3 j O (� O pppp tC�.7 OD (b O N N W O O O N Cn Cn V Cn O O O) q O O A W W 0 0 0 0 w A 0 0 Cn A O 0 0 + p p 0 0 tJ 0 0 0 O C>D + A OD v 0 0 0 0 N O v co tT O 00 O O O O V (n A g (A S2 T-n T-n 000< N 7 7 7 7 f) _ ID C g ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 no °' m OOOOG�O n C) 3 0 CD N N N N cD 0 '� y (p m 7 (0/1 tfDn N Jc a s 3( N O. Fzi 0cymmmmmm m 0o.mm lZ �?,O1°1mm a o 0 9D 9D 9D 9D9Dm (gym nn o ° x 0 0 2 N >,r CD DDDDDD � Ov°» v m m m (o (o of ai c c d O O (D N y N N N y 7 g N a» f1 C CD y y N y N y N y r CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 y O C 0 C C C 05 61 N O 9 ° d 3 v m coom as =0 (o C = y y y 0 2 9 CD 2 AA A A t A A A A A A A A A A A A 9 A A A A A A A A Q to �T Cn C1i (n Cn (n CT CT Cn Cn Cn U) V1 Cn (T Cf) fn O( Cn CT Cn w W Cn -4 O OD W a O Cn Cn N j A v o 7 'O O n O N Cn A W N N C O n A V V V V V W M N Cn OD (n A 0 () K) (2 CO n (O Cn OD N C0 _ O O N N b W W O Cn m V N (O (0 A 00'< O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 00 8090890 o CD OD T T CA 00 T OD Cn (O O V (O co , OD (O 7C Z ZZ cn(n?CACnChlncncnwmm ZZAG,Z wv)wcnci wb) ?��a D DD niv°D�i�i�i�i�i�i�cwnwDDOD D �cooiw cnnApCCDDcoo DDD O Cl) Cn 0 0 0 0 0 0 O V Cl) CO N W N Cn O) O (O O. A <�< aocnS mTDCaCCCC��y3c�OVm TTTT� Om�� D D D D (°i n o CD o 0 0 o co 0 3 m c O T () N O) co C CA CA (A CA S 7T7 o U N (j N CD N (D CD OR O 7 z. z Z �. �. 7. `z `z `z 7 7 N j j O1 -i d 90 N C(2_77 -n (D �, N N N N N N N ((D (D ry (D (D N N < N (/) (/) (/) y in iA VI fD LD (ID z i y N y O) _ tj m (O r (D N N y fD y O? O O O 2 z z n 0 0 0 y y 7 m CD q 7 C C C Qp QD (D n 0 0 m dy y a m v o ;,4 v Zj Q? 0 0 N a o w C. y (11 41 N N 3 (�D C7 C ^� � Q° ° N O v ii Z a d d m o CD O (D d Q f° C- m 0 ID o m to � �� a m (o � 7- z N O O N y N N (D n Cl co �"� Q fD a (On co 7 m Cn f 0 C1 (Il 0 O O (D z -0 . x 0 O t CD (n N V 7 0 < 7 CD d fA (A fA 6A (A 69 66 fA fA 69 EA 69 EA to 6A 64 69 (A EA EA 69 69 (0 69 EA 69 fA EA 69 69 EA A � OD tV O W V V N OD N) (n O N Cl) O O N A OD W O A to N O Cn O CO W 0 O Cn OD N O � A W CA O Cn W O A N 0 O O O� co O� � O) � � N O A S O (O N CT O O O CT O Cn O 00 O Cn cn O 4069 69 69 69 (f) fA EA fA 169 EA fA fA f9 69 69 69 to fA fA 69 60 69 69 EA fA to 69 to 64 fA + + C) A N + N+ W W A V Cn pp' O) O Cn -� V (n V a OD W C D 9D 5). A O A A N S Cl, Cn O N� O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N N N 0 0 0 A A O O W O O0D CINi OND COn (n OND O W 3 � O N T CD D 3 D A C A) O d T 0 C— r C m Z civic .i Q N C 161:4 'B18 PEBBLE BEACH BOULEVARD LIGHTING EVALUATION Evaluation Guidelines 1. Evaluate potential residential style roadway lighting along Pebble Beach Blvd. from St. Andrews Blvd. to the northern most intersection of Big Springs Dr. approximately 2,000 linear feet. 2. Evaluate lighting layouts to provide uniform illumination throughout the roadway area. 3. Review multiple lighting sources and systems such as conventional lamp & ballast, L.E.D., and Solar powered. Fixture Comparisons Solar Vision Visionaire ARIA- 1- T3- 50LED -SOLX 15.5 mounting height, 50W LED Architectural Area Lighting Universe® LED (UCM- TE- 60LED -BW) 12' mounting height, 60 lights, 71W LED Lumec Domus Small Luminarie (DOS -90CW -SGQ- VOLT -LR- BKTX), Pole (R80E- 12- BKTX), double arm mount (DBB -2 -BKTX) 13' & 15' mounting height Lumec Domus Small Luminarie (DOS -90CW -SGQ- VOLT -LR- BKTX), Pole (R80E- 12- BKTX), single arm mount (BB -2 -BKTX) 13'& 15'mounting height Lumec Domus Small Luminarie (DOS- 60LED- BKTX), Pole (R80E- 12- BKTX), single arm mount (BB -2 -BKTX) 13'& 15'mounting height Lumec Domus 55 Luminarie (DOS -100MH -SGQ- VOLT -LR- BKTX), Pole (R80F -12- BKTX), single arm mount (BB -2 -BKTX) 25' mounting height Lumec Domus 55 Luminarie (DOS -100MH -SGQ- VOLT -LR- BKTX), Pole (R80E- 12- BKTX), double arm mount (DBB -2 -BKTX) 25" mounting height Energy Use Comparisons 100 watt metal halide lamp requires 125 imput watts of generated electrical energy 60 watt cosmopolis lamp requires 67.3 imput watts of generated electrical energy 50 watt solar led lamp requires 0 imput watts of generated electrical energy The Philips CosmopolisTm CosmowhiteTM lamp, holder and ballast system has a comparable or lower energy consumption costs with initial lower purchase costs than a conventional LED lighting system. The imput of the Lumec LED is 65 watts verses 67 watts for the Cosmopolis, but the lumen output is 25 percent less with the LED. The system also has comparable payback costs to the LED lighting system. A 70 watt LED fixture has a 6% annual energy savings over the 100 watt metal halide fixture. (365 days, 12 hr /day @ $0.10 per kWh) (70W LED saves $25.85 per yr. verses 100W MH) 161 B 18 The Solar Vision Visionaire system has a higher initial installation costs due to the solar technology, close fixture spacing due to low light output levels along with the new technology purchase price of the product. The multiple components making up the solar fixture would have higher long range maintenance costs. Lighting Layout Evaluation Table 1 Roadway Design Assumptions: Road Length = 2,000 ft. Number of Lanes = 4 Travel Lane Width = 10 ft. Curbed Median Width = 8 ft. Valley Gutter Shoulder = 2 ft. Table 1 Design Criteria IES RP8 -2000 Pavement = Asphalt -R3 Pedestrian Conflict Low Average Illuminance = 0.4 fc Uniformity Ratio = Avg /Min = 6.0 Veiling Luminance Ratio = Max/Avg = 0.4 Table 1 Luminaire Evaluated 100 Watt Metal Halide Lamp Lumens = 8,100 Light Loss Factor = 1.0 Layouts Considered: Median — Double Fixture (MD), Right -of -way (R/W) Staggered Table 1: Summary of Lighting Results -- Meeting IES Criteria Mounting Height g Layout Type yp Calculated Spacing P g Estimate of Required Fixture Avg Illuminance Uniformity (Avg/Min) Veiling Luminance Ratio ft ft fc Criteria Met? Criteria Met? Lv Criteria Met? 13 R/W 41 98 2.5 Yes 2.8 Yes 0.4 Yes 13 MD 43 47 i 3.8 Yes 4.2 Yes 0.4 Yes 20 R/W 95 43 1.2 Yes 1.7 Yes 0.4 Yes 20 MD 118 17 1.4 Yes 3.5 Yes 0.4 Yes 25 R/W 166 25 0.7 Yes 3.5 Yes 0.4 Yes 25 MD 165 13 1.0 Yes 5.0 Yes 0.4 Yes 30 R/W 160 26 0.7 Yes 1.8 Yes 0.3 Yes 30 1 r_ MD 1 191 1 11 1 0.7 Yes 3.5 Yes 0.4 Yes For example the highlighted row indicates a median only layout with the least amount of fixtures (13). The 25 ft. mounting height median layout would require four additional single R/W fixtures in order reach the northern most Big Springs Dr. intersection. Table 2 Roadway_Design Assumptions: Road Length = 2,000 ft. Number of Lanes = 2 Travel Lane Width = 13 ft Bike Lane = 7 ft. Table 2 Luminaire Evaluated 90 Watt Cosmopolis lamp (MH & R/W)) 60 Watt Cosmopolis Lamp Lumens = 60 w = 6,900, 90w = 10,450 Light Loss Factor = 1.0 Fixture RAN Setback = 16' from travel lane Curbed Median Width = 10 ft. Valley Gutter Shoulder = 2 ft. Table 2 Design Criteria IES RP8 -2000 Pavement = Asphalt -R3 Pedestrian Conflict Low Arm Length = 1.5' 16 111. '818 Layouts Considered: Median — Double Fixture (MD); Right -of -way (R/W) Opposite /Square Table 2: Summary of Lighting Results -- Meeting IES Criteria Mounting Height Lamp Wattage Layout Type Calculated Spacing Estimate of Required Fixture Avg Illuminance Uniformity (Avg/Min) Ft. w Ft. +/- fc Criteria Met? fc Criteria Met? 13 90w R/W 55 74 1.14 Yes 2.9 Yes 15 90w R/W 80 50 .94 Yes 2.6 Yes 13 60w MD 85 25 2.10 Yes 5.1 Yes 15 60w M D 100 25 1.75 Yes 1 5.4 Yes The 13 ft. and 15 ft. mounting height median layout would require four additional single RA// fixtures in order reach the northern most Big Springs Dr. intersection. The optimum fixture spacing in the medians for 13 ft. ht. and 15 ft. ht. fixtures is 85 feet ( + / -). Wider spacing does not layout in the shorter medians. The wider spacing could only be beneficial in the one longest median. Table 3 Roadway Design Assumptions: Table 3 Luminaire Evaluated Road Length = 2,000 ft. 60 Watt LED lamp (MH & R/W)) Number of Lanes = 2 Lumens = 71 w = 6,900 Roadway Width = 48 ft. Light Loss Factor = 1.0 Fixture R/W Setback = 4' Arm Length = 1.5' Table 3 Design Criteria IES RP8 -2000 Pavement = Asphalt -R3 Pedestrian Conflict Low Layouts Considered: Median — Double Fixture (MD), Right -of -way (R/W) Opposite /Square Table 3: Summary of Lighting Results -- Meeting IES Criteria Mounting Height g Lamp Wattage g Layout Type Yp Calculated Spacing p g Estimate of Required Fixture Avg Illuminance Uniformity (Avg/Min) Ft. w Ft. +/- fc Criteria Met? fc Criteria Met? 12 60w R/W 60 74 1.61 Yes 1.61 Yes 12 60w MD 90 25 1.61 Yes 1.61 Yes The optimum fixture spacing in the medians for 12 ft. ht. fixtures is 85 feet ( + / -). Wider spacing does not layout in the shorter medians. The wider spacing could only be beneficial in the one longest median. - 16 1.119 18 Installed Lighting Systems Opinion of Costs Lumec Domus 55 at 25 ft. mounting height in medians $150,000 100W MH (13 double fixtures) (Conventional trenched & directional bore conduit & conductor installation) Lumec Domus 55 at 25 ft. mounting height on R/W $210,000 100W MH (26 double fixtures) (Conventional trenched & directional bore conduit & conductor installation) Solar Vision Visionaire 15.5 ft. mounting height R/W $872,670 50W LED (114 single fixtures) (Assumed: 35 ft. spacing, $500.00 installed anchor costs, 50% contractor markup for fixtures and install, installed fixture estimate $7,655.00 ea.) Lumec Domus Small 13 ft. mounting height on R/W $296,000 (90W Cosmopolis 74 single fixtures) (Conventional trenched & directional bore conduit & conductor installation) Lumec Domus Small 15 ft. mounting height on R/W $200,000 90W Cosmopolis (50 single fixtures) (Conventional trenched & directional bore conduit & conductor installation) Lumec Domus Small 13 ft. or 15 ft. mounting height on MD $150,000 60W Cosmopolis (25 double fixtures) (Conventional trenched & directional bore conduit & conductor installation) Lumec Domus Small 13 ft. mounting height on R/W $303,400 (60W LED 74 single fixtures) (Conventional trenched & directional bore conduit & conductor installation) Lumec Domus Small 13 ft. or 15 ft. mounting height on MD $152,500 60W LED (25 double fixtures) (Conventional trenched & directional bore conduit & conductor installation) Architectural Area Lighting Universe ®12 ft. mounting height on RNV $458,800 LED 60W (74 single fixtures) (Conventional trenched & directional bore conduit & conductor installation) (Pricing Requested) Architectural Area Lighting Universe@ 12 ft. mounting height on MD $235,025 LED 60W (25 single fixtures) (Conventional trenched & directional bore conduit & conductor installation) (Pricing Requested) 161--lSI8 Report for Lely MSTU Meeting date: July 15, 2010 Lely MSTU Project Status (L-49) ACTIVE — Lighting Study (Pebble Beach pilot study for lighting options) 07- 15 -10: Concept information provided by copy of CD to Committee on May 20, 2010. Staff recommends additional review of content of CD (delivered on 5- 20 -10) with Committee during MSTU meeting so that information is communicated in meeting format/forum. (L -48) ACTIVE — Modifications to Doral Circle Bridge (Committee Request for `lighting on bridge') 07- 15 -10: McGee plans for 30% concept are completed. Submittal for Committee approval of concept to occur at 7 -15 -10 meeting. Upon Committee approval 60% plans and cost estimate will be provided. (1,47) ACTIVE — Installation of Mixing Chamber 07- 15 -10: Revised project plans & specifications will be bid. Project was recommended for `re -bid' due to questions regarding specifications. Bidding will occur as soon as ROW Section review /approval is completed (within 2 weeks of this report) (L46) COMPLETED — Hot Tap Project (Warren Street) Utilities Facility; McGee Services under Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term; 07- 15 -10: Project Completed (L -34) - ACTIVE - On Going — Ongoing Maintenance Contract: Commercial Land Maintenance; 7- 27 -09: Commercial Land Maintenance has trimmed all shrubs to required specification of "Cut to 18 inches and maintain at 24 inches "; Staff will inspect the project on a `weekly basis'; Contractor is to provide service reports within 12 hours of completion of any contract service (ref: notification originally sent on 6 -30 -09 to CLM via email) (1,45) ACTIVE — On Going - McGee Annual LA Services — Landscape Architectural Services 07- 15 -10: McGee & Associates under contract per Committee approval. i E e ppt OC c � C rn < OR N y h O =Q N � Q a Z s a 2 CD a �1 3 � no N `r y� Y7 Cn a 4 0 0 a 3 D D S2o 'y O y yO n C) O t� b� f 16118181 MATCHLATE A -A i 0476 S#13 MY 'LS — — — — — � , � — — — — •� 3Apyg 113N1V3H # `"a' -,In e�n�wiaa L— - - — — — — $ It by 0479 moo- 8 37893d I y uolP°� — — — — — — — n ODOM � '`K � •Ha 7pHSN.'iV8 Ole krt b^ wl l� 1. i' b O � y � ` MATCHLINE A -A THESE PLANS AND TECHNICAL DRAIIINCS REMAIN THE COPYRIGHT PROPERTY OF THE DESIGNER. NO PART OF THESE DRAINNGS MAY BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED OR 13UILT OR USED 111THOUT THE NPoTIEN PERMISSION OF MCGOO t AaoclatM ' ©' 2010 m m N O Z N e y d' co ccC _ =O CD fig0 a n r o v h (� I h E2, ,Cy y 0 ^c C a O C a by w � y b b �+ Lz a 1611 B18 1- �11 MATCHLINE A -A 1 '0A76 SM3t1�N, '15 JA a .j; r — .od •K7 3AWS N3HlV3H h� 6 g a N O dpi •K1 d�(i��dB — — — — — rn - - - -- GIG I I 7ougu7ve ;o Vi O Z 0 WV cw CD ,.n 0 o. .3 0 > fig • O ti -,u *OA79 WWW �— 16/,l 818 , MA TCHLINE A -A SIX .ffl 3'"'q d3H1y3H J.4namidu U. as It NY r- to V1, 3 m m --I - -- MA TCHLINE A -A 1 THESE PLANS AND TECHNICAL DRAVANGS RE)d A IN THE COPYRIGHT PROPERTY OF THE DESIGNER. NO PART OF THESE DRAVANGS MAY BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED OR BUILT OR USED VATHOUT THE VMTTEN POUSSIOm OF m.G.. & A.,I t.. -Q- 2010 m N O Z N 1611 g18 I MATCHLINE A -A TA TA76 S#J 10NY •!s g ' � N 6 n"_0 m — �- - — — — — w .on 3AOdS N3HlI3H tw t- - -- O mr 0. L- - - - - -- s 0 fig D t L — i t -on AJn j $ y� l zy r- L- - - - - -- r 'y b •0176 /iWW 37es3d I w11DoW i C ,Muses - duo - g in low, C om ��,�� 4 m w Y EM __ _. ._ MATCHL /N A -A THESE PLANS AND TECHNICAL DRAVANGS RAIN THE COPYRIGHT PROPERTY OF THE DESIGNER, NO PART OF THESE DRAMINCS MAY BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED OR BUILT OR USED NITHOUT THE NPoTIEN PERMISSION OF McG" t Awoebtw • ©• 2010 iyg sY p. I- 0 N�p 0 D > O c�- r, 0 Z m p rri TTI 4 U) M 0 0 Cf) M o M M n i m m CU > Zr' i ---I — , 0 U')y 7 SIB 70 m 0 0 r) x m CIO eta g COO -p- > CIO C4 0 x n rn F1 zo 0 m Q N 46 ''D Fri cu z I m m ?< c c) m m 0 C7 N 00 0 S c CA --I m m F- c:: > 0 I F > > oc) c T I- 0 N�p 0 D > O c�- r, 0 Z m p rri TTI 4 U) M 0 0 Cf) M o M M n i m m CU > Zr' i c) U')y 7 SIB 70 m 0 0 r) x m -U'>� m - h 0 rn c: c) (/-) --I m - X>r m F9 Fri x Z 0 > 0 U) F1 m z Fri cu z I m k m C7 N 00 0 CA --I m Z cn ;lj I F > oc) c T Z 0 0 0� -'I�) CD m (A co 0 > Z z > -< U CO (D "o C)z m :7j 0 mz > > O F m Tj m n > z m 0 c X nl >Z m Am X U') ;u CD 0 -< -< > c K -u O m m z > F- m n C) F- Z 0 C) z �a C) N) > C T1 > cf) > N U') dl -U'>� m - h -a c: 161,1 B18 f X 0 > m ' x 0 m (Z: C/):j N1 All]�JO M07111AA ----------- m x O > F- mm c 7,iEcl:)) > r ,—NIVM DNO:) 10m 'j — — — — — — — — -- — — - >130MVI-I ]IAVNS31-LiV�l X99 GVOd )\iNnoo 00+T 00+T �U ILLMK.AL UKAM4(,'j REMAIN THE COPYRIGHT PROPERTY OF THE DESIGNER. NO PART OF THESE DRAWINGS MAY BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED OR BUILT OR USED WnH(XJT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF mco" & Anodot" *(D, 2010 0 rn c: (/-) --I m - X>r m F9 Fri x Z 0 > 0 U) F1 m z Fri cu z I m m m m CA --I m ;lj I F > m > Z z > r'l (D m mz Z -a c: 161,1 B18 f X 0 > m ' x 0 m (Z: C/):j N1 All]�JO M07111AA ----------- m x O > F- mm c 7,iEcl:)) > r ,—NIVM DNO:) 10m 'j — — — — — — — — -- — — - >130MVI-I ]IAVNS31-LiV�l X99 GVOd )\iNnoo 00+T 00+T �U ILLMK.AL UKAM4(,'j REMAIN THE COPYRIGHT PROPERTY OF THE DESIGNER. NO PART OF THESE DRAWINGS MAY BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED OR BUILT OR USED WnH(XJT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF mco" & Anodot" *(D, 2010 1611 B18 ' bdZ NNr�I ~00 �p 2 �t7r� -� r1 `C7C)RO1 -'pZ(T mnrnD z C� Z0O1Tlr� °d°p Z DfTlrrp -irk ;pn ty �C AI'�ZZ�'�fY1C�fY mzDr UlfT1 2�� n v(nCzV0 --imm ' n o z ..0 DDZSp ii)� -I� V DDS- 1 -1-1=n D Z <t7Dz °zC - -j r- itn�77;U�p r pa C7r'lx -9;v d n i rrio�c�c��dvzi pz r x�m N� t z-< z N�� -i :>>M d a .�Z mm (/1poDIT1 ZZt7D M 0-0 z>nc/) A � >m W-93:r- w Z- � - -oZN •�Z�D D f'l ;a G1 M ( DD �dD;o -b r- Z- vi D - 1 rT1 t7 � n m zrl r m n� rZzC r/1 z N I'I'- 0 -4 -0 ( � � Cz C� D Ctj o a r S D �o °ZXZN �1DtyZ Ar 0 N Mop d Z p W -A C7 D - I ;u rn w 2D I1 n N p m N � ,�. p Z N f'l D S f'l 1> Sf*1 74 . td X I Co -Id _:) rx TI -. C-) N p fly r--�Dp o opr D ° p ,i A rozr n z �Z :cw Z C) Zt�txJ m 1 oC-1Gl TI0 Cam, d F-i DD -i • p -iW SS tjTm �D F9 D r0 Z D i-.� TIC Z�p-1 0'- iip-ir nD�� Z7 _ rp r C -ice p 3> -u znNC --Ird r p £ m " r (Tl i--� H rL D Q°N C ON D p(7 �X •ter ZpZC)m On N r p D t7 --1 p Z D t7Z rz n r� OW .N % DC)-i XrnZtyfTl r- E:] F- n F9 pry N -1° r -u -Vic �-u oa drv� �'� -+-+3 ��ITI r- D H D C� p U ;'•. ` r ;u OD �= bN2 � �� app Z� (7 , • • -0 N p o D o S M Z D -i m ,.o• • . �m �� c:) °�aDC1 ryN r Dz o I- f D z N� o �d c14 z�X �°o F I M z :O� ,, �' IjD m-r{ 'gyp omtj td -- D F- tj ►` I A rn n 1 r rn %7 m O ^ M fm cfl I Z o z O�D� e ,.. N �+ A' • c- a G e V) - zrpio • 2 -4 < r -1 a -0 t7r 8 n NN rl , ;t7 p I r'1X MW Xr0x 7 � ` mmn p , � � fr l.i N -C �= c m r/1 rn C n rn D N r Z a Ln _9 1 Mr cr` v� r °xc� D =nom Ago -� z M-4 I r p N p rn m F- nn xm ° z ww m r r a m 1 r r- 1c v'-i °z� o ry <X �n (1) m m p3 O W m 0 a n -i -1 D h DZ �Z X I ;U rm a c: ;v X n �y N M D N U rn r -4 N r Oy rZ I xr 1 4 ��. ° O r7U 4 U --IOU 0 -D OX r Ln p? Ja N °� Z�4 D Z� p Z� N 00 D za D Arm �o;a N < D <� y" c V) z-0 o m m �O I-1� • r: r-Xr O-9Z C7D N Z D �mz aM�rrl! a F- --i � 0 r- � -A z b D D o m F- z r� CD D m �n I =<v� b 0 o D D ON -- -- - ��' F---1 £ .� i. N lTj t-i a Z p v I I z r; o r x Tl N W D r H V) o d F9 = d D r a d N W I D i rn H o �i am no m THESE PLANS AND TECHNICAL DRANNGS REHAMI THE COPYRIGHT PROPERTY OF THE DESIGNER. NO PART OF THESE DRANiNGS MAY BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED OR BUILT OR USED 1NTHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MCG" k A•wcWta ' ©' 2010 �r 0 0 O 0 0 V • �O a n Mn C C b d O b � W ^b^ �J Mn C Z = Om W � 1611 B18 L T i o � 1 m ■� i gG C7 P O P Z n z N � ;_ C7 m s4xn (� f'l�' 36r�ii D�ZO _ NDrti(� mspiz to it M C11 -u rq w In D., m () �iz r o r m r D N -i fTl 3 W (A A c N i r + ^ i N ~ P� 4 T cx r 4 MU ILl7fNK:AL ORANNGS REMAIN THE COPYRIGHT PROPERTY OF THE DESIGNER NO PART OF THESE DRANINGS MAY BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED OR BOLT OR USED NTDNOUT THE WITTEN PEAWSSION OF YcGM k Awoclatp '(6)' 2010 1 r a a l t 3 if F, If 1j, �n y �C Y � y � OC b O O � b �7 I 16118184 N O 2 N T . + CD I 1� I {� V ilo m z v� m m (7 = R N N \ D C-) ° f'lr-� D \D I� < µ rd (nD° ~C� � -j <:C --j O = -i (/) z -i z yp ti A m All w 1 A ZS �i ± c, v M. Inc VK �IaYi11 rmu tHIY OF THE DESIGNER. NO PART OF THESE DRA111NOS MAY BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED OR BUILT OR USED 1MTHOUT THE WITTEN PERMISSION OF Md:M t Aaodata "(a), 2010 M. Inc VK �IaYi11 rmu tHIY OF THE DESIGNER. NO PART OF THESE DRA111NOS MAY BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED OR BUILT OR USED 1MTHOUT THE WITTEN PERMISSION OF Md:M t Aaodata "(a), 2010 16118184 FOLLOW -UP FOR: July 15, 2010 Meeting Lely MSTU "To Do List" 1. Subrogation Recovery: a. Accident 859; damage amount: $515.00; Median #8 on St. Andrews Status: Landscape Repair Completed (CLM Estimate E1002519); No Traffic Accident report found to match damage b. Accident # 947; Found on 01 -15 -10 on Forest Hills Blvd. Status: Estimate for $607.00 from Commercial Land approved for repairs. 2. Committee Request: McGee& Associates to provide proposal to research lighting on Pebble Beach Blvd. Status: Notice to Proceed Issued on February 9, 2010 for McGee & Associates; McGee to report on status of research into lighting options Request for quotes for new FDOT type railing near Canal (on St. Andrews Blvd.): Status: Per May 20 2010 meeting since the pipe is now `green' in color this proposed installation may not be necessary; need to review `planting' options for the canal crossing area. 4. Sidewalks on US 41 at St. Andrews — ADA Compliance: Status: Project has been brought to attention of FDOT for funding. Funding has not been allocated for project to address the ADA compliance issue. 5. Doral Circle Bridge Improvements: Status: McGee plans are at 30% design — upon Committee approval on July 15, 2010 for 30% concept — McGee will proceed with 60% plans and cost estimate. • • ilk s: Jl All Sim S■ 1611 t18 Ittl GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Fl 34104 July 15, 2010 Minutes I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 4:02 P.M. 11. Attendance: Members: Robert Slebodnik, Tony Branco, Kathleen Dammert (Excused), David Larson, Jennifer Tanner County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM Others: Mike McGee -McGee & Associates, Darlene Lafferty— Juristaff Darryl Richard announced Tessie Sillery will not attend the Lely MSTU meetings due to reorganisation of personnel in County Departments. Robert Slebodnik noted Gloria Herrera was reassigned to serve as Budget Analyst for the MSTU. III. Approval of Agenda Change: V. should read. Budget Report — "Gloria Herrera" Add: Xll. A. Board Member Expiration Dates Xll. B. Election of Officers Vll. D. Donal Bridge Project Tony Branco moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: May 20, 2010 Add. Pam Lulich- Manager Landscape Operations was present Tony Branco moved to approve the May 20, 2010 minutes as amended. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera Gloria Herrera reviewed the following information: • Uncollected Ad Valorem Tax $8,682.06 • Operating Expense Commitments $46,897.38 Discussion ensued concerning Hart's Electrical open P.O. and it was concluded sufficient monies were available ($1,404.58) for completed work. 160' 1 B18 Darryl Richard noted Hart's Electrical annual contract expired. He will review eligible Electrical Contractors for the new Fiscal Year with Tony Branco. Robert Slebodnik inquired on the billed amount for Water usage in April and May (new tap Warren Street.) Gloria Herrera reviewed information from invoiced Water Bills: • March $375.00 (tap opening) - No previous water usage • June $549.49 - No previous water usage - Previous billing cycle $375.00 (tap opening) Robert Slebodnik requested testing of the Irrigation Rain Sensors. Daryl Richard will notify CLM of the request. VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM -None VII. Landscape Architect's Report - McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report Mike McGee reported: St. Andrews o Palms and Oak Trees require pruning (US41 entry) o (6) dead Alamanda Shrubs require replacement o Damaged Tree (trunk area) was installed (Median 3) and requires replacement at CLM expense due to an oversight on the Tree's condition prior to installation Forest Hills (Median 12) o Assessment of (1) Tabebui Tree is needed to determine if a replacement is required o Trees require Pruning to preclude vehicle contact o (8) Juniper will be planted to close a gap between the Bougainvillea and Juniper Pebble Beach Blvd. • Torpedo Grass (Median 16) requires an additional treatment • CLM will be advised - Plant replacements are required for (8) Xanadu (Cart Crossing) - To apply Fertilization and iron treatments concurrently Robert Slebodnik questioned the status on Xanadu replacements (reviewed at the May 20th meeting.) Mike McGee responded Xanadu replacements are incomplete. He requested Soil samples or Plant root tissue samples to identify the problem source with the Xanadu. 1611618 Doral o Contractor was negligent on the following items - Excessive Weeds - Mowing (behind Podocarpus) Robert Slebodnik noted Maintenance Service was omitted on several Streets. Darryl Richard will advise Robert Kindelan of the deficient Maintenance Service by CLM. o Inspection is required on (1) leaking sprinkler head (east ROW) Tony Branco remarked on the condition of the Doral sign. Staff will inspect the Doral sign for possible repairs. o Doral Median - Bougainvillea requires trimming - Lantana requires cutback (behind the curb) - Declining Ixora require replacements Darryl Richard stated a follow up inspection will be conducted by Staff and Mike McGee upon completion of the Maintenance work. B. Reuse Mixing Chamber Mike McGee reviewed the Mixing Chamber Plans noted additional information was added to the Plans: • Break down on Contractor Bid requirements • Flush System was modified (is a cost reduction) • Bore was removed as existing water meter will be utilized Darryl Richard will email the Bid schedule to the Committee. Mike McGee distributed photograph Pinehurst Estates Sign. (See attached) He suggested remounting the sign on top of existing Monument as it is covered by Plant Material (Dwarf Crown of Thorn.) After discussion it was concluded the Sign is property of the Civic Association and the Easement is maintained by the Lely MSTU. Tony Branco suggested trimming the Shrubs and installing a Mulch area. C. Lighting Project Update Mike McGee reported on the Pebble Beach Boulevard Lighting Evaluation: LT1 (ROW layout) o Mounting height 13 ft. 0 55 ft. spacing between Fixtures o Fixture is Setback 7 ft. from Valley Gutter 3 1611'818- o Estimated Cost $80,000.00 includes - Cost of Light Fixture - Conduit installation - Load center installation LT2 (Median layout) • Excluding installation of (4) Fixtures outside Median 19 as it ends short of the Big Springs Intersection • Install Double Headed Fixture (similar to Doral Fixtures) • Installed 12 -15 ft. distance from Median Curb LT3 (ROW layout) • Fixture mounting height 25 ft. • Increased spacing due to expanded illumination from 25 ft. height LT4 (Median layout) • Install Double Headed Fixtures • Mounting height 25 ft. • Number of required Fixtures is reduced due to 25 ft. height Installed Udhtina Svstems Opinion of Cost (See attached, o Median layout 13 -15 ft. mounting height - Estimate $150,000.00 - (25) double headed Fixtures - Single Head Fixtures Discussion took place concerning reoccurring cost associated with the Lighting Project: • Electricity • Bulb replacement • Maintenance • Replacement cost from vehicle damage Tony Branco requested a cost estimate for electricity usage based on current FPL rates. Robert Slebodnik requested an estimate for Electrical Maintenance. Staff will compare current County Contracts and provide a cost projection to the Committee. Robert Slebodnik summarized the discussion • Median Design is preferred by the Committee (LT2) • Mike McGee will provide Data on projected Electrical cost 4 [-93 Doral Bridge Project Mike McGee reviewed LD -1 Modifications are required at existing Electrical Meter Panel for (electrical) tie in (Rattlesnake and Doral) Directional Bore may be required pending County determination on utilizing existing 15 ft. LDE Easement - ROW indicated by dashed double line r.� WE 161-1 B18 Bridge Improvement Plans: (See attached) LD -2 and LD -3 • Barrier Wall must meet FDOT Standards (in the event of vehicle impact) • Websites will be provided to the Committee on a variety of stone material for Barrier Wall facing (to match Hibiscus) Tony Branco suggested installing Light Fixtures similar to the Country Club for continuity. Darryl Richard reported coordination with the existing Contractor (Barrier Wall) is not possible and a separate Bid is required for the Project. After discussion it was concluded Mike McGee will move forward with the Bridge Improvement Plan excluding the mounting layout for Light Fixtures. VIII. Transportation Operations Report - Darryl Richard reviewed the following reports: (See attachments) A. Project Managers Report (L -34) On going Maintenance Contract o Contractor will be requested to maintain shrubs 18 -20 inches B. Review of the To Do List Item 3- FDOT type railing Tony Branco volunteered to create a visual Railing concept for Committee review. Item 4 - Sidewalks on US41 at St. Andrews - ADA Compliance • FDOT is responsible to make the intersection ADA Compliant • Staff is working on locating the Funding source Tony Branco noted the intersection is incomplete and a Safety issue. IX. Housekeeping Item -None X. Committee Reports -None XI. Old Business A. Fence Quote - Previously discussed under Vll. B. 1611818 -1 XII. New Business A. Board Member expiration dates Robert Slebodnik announced two Committee Members terms expire in October 2010: o Kathleen Dammert o Robert Slebodnik Darryl Richard stated both he and Kathleen will receive a notification letter from the County. B. Election of Officers Jennifer Tanner nominated David Larson as Vice Chairman. There are no other nominations. Robert Slebodnik stated nominations are closed and David Larson is Vice Chairman. XIII. Public Comments -None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 5:45 P.M. Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Ro ert Slebod k, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented or amended The next meeting is August 19, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 0 1611 B18 Report for Lely MSTU Meeting date: August 19, 2010 Lely MSTU Project Status (L -49) ACTIVE — Lighting Study (Pebble Beach pilot study for lighting options) 08- 19 -10: McGee to provide additional detail related to `on going operational cost' associated with lighting installation. (L -48) ACTIVE — Modifications to Doral Circle Bridge (Committee Request for `lighting on bridge') 08- 19 -10: McGee to provide 90 -100% plans for final Committee review /approval prior to bidding. (L -47) ACTIVE — Installation of Mixing Chamber 08- 19 -10: Bid Due date for Bid #10- 5482R- "Lely MSTU Irrigation Reuse Water Source Renovation (MIXING CHAMBER PROJECT) has been extended to August 24, 2010. Staff anticipates BCC award on Sept. 28`h 2010. Committee will review bids for award at next meeting on Sept. 16, 2010. (L -46) COMPLETED — Hot Tap Project (Warren Street) Utilities Facility; McGee Services under Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term; 07- 15 -10: Project Completed (L -34) - ACTIVE - On Going — Ongoing Maintenance Contract: Commercial Land Maintenance; 7- 27 -09: Commercial Land Maintenance has trimmed all shrubs to required specification of "Cut to 18 inches and maintain at 24 inches "; Staff will inspect the project on a `weekly basis'; Contractor is to provide service reports within 12 hours of completion of any contract service (ref: notification originally sent on 6 -30 -09 to CLM via email) (L -45) ACTIVE — On Going - McGee Annual LA Services — Landscape Architectural Services 08- 19 -10: McGee & Associates under contract per Committee approval. 161,1 B181 August 19, 2010 Meeting Lely MSTU "To Do List" Subrogation Recovery: a. Accident 859; damage amount: $515.00; Median #8 on St. Andrews Status: Landscape Repair Completed (CLM Estimate E1002519); No Traffic Accident report found to match damage b. Accident # 947; Found on 01 -15 -10 on Forest Hills Blvd. Status: Estimate for $607.00 from Commercial Land approved for repairs. 2. Request for quotes for new FDOT type railing near Canal (on St. Andrews Blvd.): Status: Per July 15, 2010 meeting Tony Branco will do some photograph/graphics work to illustrate what the `railing' 3. Sidewalks on US 41 at St. Andrews — ADA Compliance: Status: Project has been brought to attention of FDOT for funding. Funding has not been allocated for project to address the ADA compliance issue. 4. CLM: install Holly in median #3 per McGee's report Status: CLM to report status during 8/19 meeting 5. CLM: replace Tabebulia on Forest Hills per McGee's report Status: CLM to report status during 8/19 meeting 6. CLM: have A & L Labratoris do analysis on Xanado at Augusta and Forest Hill. Existing plants have some yellowing. Status: CLM to report status during 8/19 meeting 7. Staff. Bid out revised Warren Street mixing chamber plans. Bid is due on August 24, 2010. Staff anticipates BCC award on Sept. 28th 2010. Committee will review bids for award at next meeting on Sept. 16, 2010. 8. Staff. Obtain `Carry Forward' report from Budget Office (or when the report will be available) Per Mark Isackson: The budgeted FY 2010 carryforward which represents what we anticipated the number would be at year ending 9130109 totaled $364,200. The actual audited carryforward at year ending 9130109 totaled $417,600. The $417,600 number represented the MSTU s actual cash position at the beginning of FY 2010. For FY2011, we are anticipating that the carryforward at year ending 9130110 will total $452,300. The audited number will not be available until February 2011. 9. Electrical Lighting Related: Find out what type of `lower' wattage bulb is available for Doral Circle. Residents are complaining that `the lights are too bright' Status: "diffuse coated" type bulb is recommended (per Lumec); staff will follow -up with electrician on installation of diffuse coated bulbs. 1611018 N+ O ( 00 V O/ N A W N O (O 0p V N A W N" O CO W V W D A W N+ O IO OD V 0/ V( A W N+ O mmm -(mc oco X4 --1 OmOr ;—Ou 10r zC'n m � iz0OD i � ----00 o O_L)c lnD DpCZOAmD D mmm 28s z,z v m mz zAmnmz z A z Amfm�f =a a mr�r r�r mmm m� �r0i� �gpNcm6O rza58 QgTEmm-nTmm $ZwK! *p c X003 Z�7m -�n mOzO v zcn ��OOA� n ,m�DD G Tm xx om� Cmrt7 mMm W D� x7mp-izm�00 (n-a�� rr m (pxmgzz � �Z,, XDmPiROE <m�wJ{mzwmiZnM -00- QO��020 �� c {tn v iA �O� �zZ DO�mm CO�A�OO o_00-zizmm D Z n Z m Z Z A Z m M m < m !n m 0 p p D� D m Z y� D 3 022 8D O m m OO�Zz m �� T -nm>cv zcmimm >c m L7 r — T7 Z7 m C 0 0 D D C CD m Z C7 ;0 0 - 17 O z z m m x 0 m r x n y r- F cn O � C) x C .ZmJ << 0 D 3 m r r n 1 00 0 O m D 8 N I4AI69EAINI�AEAINI( AIN I( AIN Io60606969696069696969ow60 0ollAolto o1.9000j,g00069 'a N O ?. m pN p � { O a A ' T CJ J (00 o O N N N NN+ N pp --� aD N pp� �^ pWp�� d A G W Of V 1 W W N U N (T O N A W A A Ui OO U Cn N O N W A (T U O sssssssssssss ss8ssssssssssssgs s s s 0 69 N fA 69 N N M EA N H3 CO 69 W W 69 EA o o 69 EA 69 W o fA 69 (A 69 69 69 EA o 69 EA 69 o o VPO 0) (0 3 A W A N U W 3 A , 0 0 , , O N O) U too "6969"o MN Ndf Ndi EAN Nf9 f9 Hi fA E969 FAN f9 EA NEA fA EA EA EA EA 0000O W69 M V Ln W W N N 10 N A U J W (O N U (T W ( a _psppspp;pOOO;OppV��N�,77��(J�W_p((11�pUp�ppp�ps, �cc OOW�AW, �� 1 OD aD 8 0 0 N N OD A A A O N (T ti O W -W+ OO O O O V OJ O (2 F .P N 69 69 N 69 EA N o M 69 N W 69 W W 69 fA o 69 69 W 69 69 69 69 o W N W 69 fA 69 EA 69 69 W EA 69 69 W 69 88��8��8�88��N8°8�8 88w888S w��8 8 Cn Cn cA�0�333�33 T.� > > SST-n m0 Tt0000� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o A 3 3 FD F D W fM w f� W Qo C) � r �7 ;U 3 Fu . o o Z 'D Z (f/pD1 ((//pD11 m f(p�/D1 p> m �p G� = m O 0) m V (� n ("1 ti N N C C O �. O. C" _ �3 -0 m f fR A A A A A A A A A A A A A A p A A A A A A A A p O N�O J n W p �A 1 W OJ C7 W (O OD T DDDa0 m Nw p W UO K (D N U 8 � N O W # '�'� m cn� mmaDCCCCC tncn DDDDD c = 0gm ... c� o30 o 0 �A = m m m an d 0O O (8 FD Z m y d d N in .N-. .N i .Ni ID R d m w m o' Cn o' 3 - N N s�j1 N d N O O 3 d C C C g ID go N n m < m d c m y by 3 Q CD D) d d(D d 01 N F 8 B pO N 7 o �, .;7 8-,) 3 (�(�� (FDA = O � 8 N (3n (3n b tll a ID = r -- A d N 69 N fA 69 69 69 69 69 o 69 69 69 E9 69 69 69 69 EA 69 o 69 69 69 EA 69 (A (A 69 69 69 T m mo D - N A N U V F 3 W N W W W N O O O (Wp N W O A m W O W O A U 00 co p U (O W W N J W m. O Cn A O A O N O U O m O N O 0 0 N N U O O O CT O U O) O O> O No 69 fA 0 4 N N N NN N NN N to fA fA o NEA EA iN 69 H 69 o69 EA A U W N w r (T U �1 m_ �p�p�1 pp cy.1� pp�� p (pp p p O A W U A A N U O� N (Jll O (T A Of O �( (O (AT (Uli A O ONO O Cn -� g8888��8588888U�88N��S88A�888°8 D 3 o. v D C -n rn .N.ZE< �vic N C O 1611 B18 LELY GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. PEBBLE BEACH BOULEVARD ACCENT STREET LIGHTING EVALUATION Prepared: 08/2010 Final draft Prepared for: Collier County Growth Management Division Alternate Transportation Modes Department Darryl Richard, RLA, Project Manager Prepared by: W'`�ZrC TrebilcocK Landscape Architecture I Ilannial•lneinceriap 5079 Tamiami Trail East 6660 Mangrove Way Naples, Florida 34113 Naples, Florida 34109 (239) 417 -0707 (239) 566 -9551 TABLE OF CONTENT Evaluation Guidelines Existing Conditions Lighting Fixture Comparisons Energy Use and Lifespan Comparisons Lighting Layout Evaluation Installed Lighting Systems Opinion of Costs Appendix: Plan Layout: Median & Right -of -way Double Fixtures & Single Fixtures at 55' to 70' Spacing Roadway Point of Light Level Analysis Based on 55' Spacing: Roadway Optimizer — Layout 1: Double luminaire in median, 60 watt LED at a 15.25 ft. mounting height showing points of light across a 24 ft. width pavement area. The furthest points of light toward the houses are along the house side of the concrete valley gutter. Roadway Optimizer — Layout 2: Double luminaire in median, 60 watt CosmopolisTm at a 15.25 ft. mounting height showing points of light across a 24 ft. width pavement area. The furthest points of light toward the houses are along the house side of the valley gutters. Roadway Optimizer — Layout 3: Double luminaire in median, 60 watt CosmopolisTM at a 15.25 ft. mounting height showing points of light across a 12 ft. width pavement area or what would be the travel lane. Roadway Optimizer — Layout 4: Double luminaire in median, 60 watt LED at a 15.25 ft. mounting height showing points of light across a 12 ft. width pavement area or what would be the travel lane. Product Brochure Websites: Architectural Lighting http : / /www.aal.net/content/products /literature /literature files /aal univled lit .pd Lumec: http: / /www.lumec.com /pdf /series /Domus -Small series .pd Philips CosmopolisTM: http : / /www.lighting.philips.com /us en /browseliterature /download /p- 5832. pdf Visionaire "Solar Vision": hftD://visionairelightin-g.com/products/green/aria led solar htm Lely Golf Estates Beautification, MSTU, 08/2010 Pebble Beach Blvd. Accent Street Lighting Evaluation Page 2 161-1 618 Evaluation Guidelines 1. Evaluate potential residential style roadway lighting along Pebble Beach Blvd. from St. Andrews Blvd. to the northern most intersection of Big Springs Dr. approximately 2,000 linear feet. 2. Evaluate lighting layouts to provide uniform illumination throughout the roadway area. 3. Review multiple lighting sources and systems such as conventional lamp & ballast, L.E.D., and solar powered. Existing Conditions The project area is minor collector asphalt paved roadway within a single family residential subdivision. The roadway was an original four lane divided roadway that was restriped to two 13 foot lanes and a 7 foot width in -road bike lane on each side. The roadway is bordered with a two foot wide concrete valley gutter system. The overall median width is 10 feet and is improved with landscaping and irrigation. The roadway presently has no street lighting and the only roadway lighting is provided by the single family homes lighted mail boxes or driveway lights located at the ends of the driveways. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. The Lely Golf Estates Beautification District has currently improved its St Andrews and US 41 entrance and its Doral Circle entrance with decorative accent street lighting. The current fixtures being used are Lumec "Domus Small" Luminaries with single and double arms at a 13 foot mounting height. The current lamps are 175 watt metal halide. The fixtures and luminaries are black in color and the luminaries have a luminous ring at the top of the luminaries. St. Andrews and US 41 Entrance Doral Circle Entrance Lely Golf Estates Beautification, MSTU, 08/2010 Pebble Beach Blvd. Accent Street Lighting Evaluation Page 3 i Light Fixture Comparisons The following multiple fixtures and luminaries were reviewed and evaluated for consideration as potential lighting fixture for the project. The fixtures were evaluated in different mounting heights from 13 feet to 25 feet in either a median location and /or a right - of -way location configuration. It was determined that the 25 foot height fixture in a median layout would have greater light distribution issues caused by the existing tree foliage. The general height of the existing tree foliage is between 15 to 25 feet. In narrow median the minimum mounting height for a median fixture should be 15 feet due to the potential of large van type trucks being able to extend its body beyond the curbing. Solar Vision Visionaire ARIA - SMR -1- 15.5- 5R- 48L- 50W- S1- BK -SC1, 15.5 foot mounting height, 50W LED, single arm fixture, right -of -way locations Solar Vision Visionaire ARIA - SMR -1- 15.5- 5R- 48L- 50W- D2- BK -SC1, 15.5 foot mounting height, 50W LED, double arm fixture, median locations Architectural Area Lighting Universe® LED (UCM- TE- 60LED -BW) 12' mounting height, 60 lights, 71W LED, single arm fixture Lumec Domus Small Luminarie (DOS -90CW -SGQ- VOLT -LR- BKTX), Pole (R80E- 12- BKTX), double arm mount (DBB -2 -BKTX) fixture, 13'& 15'mounting height, median locations Lumec Domus Small Luminarie (DOS -90CW -SGQ- VOLT -LR- BKTX), Pole (R80E- 12- BKTX), single arm mount (DBB -1A -BKTX) fixture, 13'& 15'mounting height, right -of -way locations Lumec Domus Small Luminarie (DOS- 60LED- BKTX), Pole (R80E- 12- BKTX), single arm mount (DBB -1A -BKTX) fixture 13'& 15'mounting height, right -of -way locations Lumec Domus 55 Luminarie (DOS -100MH -SGQ- VOLT -LR- BKTX), Pole (R80E- 12- BKTX), single arm mount and fixture (DBB -1A -BKTX) 25' mounting height, right -of -way locations Lumec Domus 55 Luminarie (DOS -100MH -SGQ- VOLT -LR- BKTX), Pole (R80E- 12- BKTX), double arm mount fixtures (DBB -2 -BKTX) 25' mounting height, median locations Energy Use and Lifespan Comparisons 100 watt metal halide lamp requires 125 input watts of generated electrical energy (Lifespan (12hrs. /day): 12,000 hours, 2.7 years) 60 watt CosmopolisTM lamp requires 67.3 input watts of generated electrical energy (Lifespan (12hrs. /day): 30,000 hours, 6.8 years) 65 watt 49 diodes 4K color led lamp requires 65 input watts of generated electrical energy (Lifespan (12hrs. /day: 70,000 hours, 16 years) Lely Golf Estates Beautification, MSTU, 08/2010 Pebble Beach Blvd. Accent Street Lighting Evaluation Page 4 1611 B18 50 watt solar led lamp requires 0 input watts of generated electrical energy (Lifespan (12 hrs. /day: 60,000 hours 13.7 years) The Philips CosmopolisTM CosmowhiteTM lamp, holder and ballast system has a comparable or lower energy consumption costs with an initial lower purchase costs than a conventional LED lighting system. The input of the Lumec LifeLED 65 watt led is 72 watts verses 67.3 watts for the CosmopolisTm 60 watt lamp, but the lumen output is 25 percent less with the LED. The system also has comparable payback costs to the LED lighting system. Example: A 70 watt LED fixture has a 6% annual energy savings over the 100 watt metal halide fixture. (365 days, 12 hr /day @ $0.10 per kWh) (70W LED saves $25.85 per yr. verses 10OW MH) The Solar Vision Visionaire system has a higher initial installation costs due to the solar technology required and close fixture spacing due to low light output levels. The multiple components making up the solar fixture would have higher long range maintenance costs. Annual operational energy costs are based upon a 25 double luminarie median with 4 right - of -way single luminaire fixtures at the north end layout. The luminaire lamp systems are 60 watt CosmopolisTM CosmowhiteTM lamps and 65 watt Lumec LifeLED led lamp systems estimated as follows: Evaluation Criteria: Energy pricing: kWh cost based upon 08/2010 Florida Power & Light Company billing Statement, Fuel: $0.041810 & Non -fuel: $0.054020 or $0.09583 per kWh Operating time: 365 days X 12 hrs. /day @ $0.09583 per kWh System power loss: 5 percent system power loss factored into luminaire input wattage CosmopolisTm Lamp (54 lamps X 70 input watts) _ (3,780 watt/hr X 12 hr /day = 45,360 watt/hrs. /day _ 1000) _ 45.36 kWh /day @ $0.09583 per kWh = $4.35 per day X 365 days = $1,587.75 per year LED Lamp (54 lamps X 75.6 input watts) _ (4,082 watt/hr X 12 hr /day = 48,989 watt/hrs. /day = 1000) _ 48.99 kWh /day @ or $0.09583 per kWh = $4.69 per day X 365 days = $1,711.85 per year Estimated Annual Electric Based System Budgeting /Operating Costs: Electric energy: $ 2,000.00 Maintenance: (38 poles @ $15.00 per pole per year) $ 570.00 Operating Subtotal: $ 2,570.00 Replacements Based Upon Potential Vehicular Damage: 2 - Single luminaire $ 3,000.00 Lely Golf Estates Beautification, MSTU, 08/2010 Pebble Beach Blvd. Accent Street Lighting Evaluation Page 5 1611818 2 - Double luminaire $ 5,000.00 Handling, Assembly, Setting, Demolition, Anchor Base, Fuses & Wire: (Based upon 2 single & 2 double) $ 2,000.00 Budget Subtotal: $10,000.00 Estimated Minimum Electric Based Annual Budget/Operating Total: $12,570.00 Estimated Annual Solar Based System Budgeting /Operating Costs: Electric energy: $ -0- Maintenance: (57 poles @ $15.00 per pole per year will be used for Comparison purposes, but battery evaluation will increase maintenance costs with each additional year of use) $ 855.00 Operating Subtotal: $ 855.00 Replacements Based Upon Potential Vehicular Damage: 2 - Single luminaire $ 9,540.00 2 - Double luminaire $15,932.00 Battery maintenance and /or replacement: $ 1,000.00 Handling, Assembly, Setting, Demolition, Anchor Base, Fuses: (Based upon 2 single & 2 double) $ 2.000.00 Budget Subtotal: $28,472.00 Estimated Minimum Solar Based Annual Budget/Operating Total: $29,327.00 Lighting Layout Evaluation Table 1 Roadway Design Assumptions: Road Length = 2,000 ft. Number of Lanes = 2 Travel Lane Width = 13 ft. Bike Lane = 7 ft. Curbed Median Width = 10 ft. Valley Gutter Shoulder = 2 ft. Fixture R/W Setback = 7' Table 1 Design Criteria IES RP8 -2000 Pavement = Asphalt -R3 Pedestrian Conflict -Low Avg. Illuminance = >-.4 fc Uniformity Ratio (Avg /Min) =:5 6.0 Table 1 Luminaire Evaluated 60 Watt Cosmopolis lamp (MH) Arm Length = 1.5' Lumens = 60 w = 6,900 Light Loss Factor = 1.0 Luminaire Lumens = 4,034 Lely Golf Estates Beautification, MSTU, 08/2010 Pebble Beach Blvd. Accent Street Lighting Evaluation Page 6 I 16 h1 B18 Layouts Considered: Median — Double Fixture (MD); Right -of -way (R/W) Opposite /Square Table 1: Summary of Lighting Results -- Meeting IES Criteria Mounting Height Lamp Wattage Layout Type Calculated Spacing Estimate of Required Fixture Avg Illuminance Uniformity (Avg/Min) Ft. w Type Ft. +/- fc Criteria Met? fc Criteria Met? 15 60w R/W 55 4 1.86 Yes 3.38 Yes 15 60w MD 55 34 1.86 Yes 3.38 Yes Table 1 Design Considerations: The 15 ft. mounting height median layout would require 4 additional single R/W fixtures in order to reach the northern most Big Springs Dr. intersection. The optimum fixture spacing in the medians for 15 ft. height fixtures is 85 feet ( + / -). Due to the shorter median lengths and holding a 10 foot setback from the median ends the optimum 85 foot spacing does not layout effectively. A median fixture layout in the medians holding a 10 foot setback from the ends would create a70 foot spacing between fixtures at the median openings and intersections. The 85 foot optimum spacing or increased mounting height above 15 feet will create light distribution issues due to the tree foliage levels in the medians. Table 2 Roadwav Desiqn Assumptions: Road Length = 2,000 ft. Number of Lanes = 2 Travel Lane Width = 13 ft. Bike Lane = 7 ft. Curbed Median Width = 10 ft. Valley Gutter Shoulder = 2 ft. Fixture R/W Setback = 7' Table 2 Design Criteria IES RP8 -2000 Pavement = Asphalt -R3 Pedestrian Conflict Low Avg. Illuminance = >_ .4 fc Uniformity Ratio (Avg /Min) =:5 6.0 Table 2 Luminaire Evaluated 65 Watt LED lamp (MH & R/W) Arm Length = 1.5' Luminaire Lumens = 2,332 Light Loss Factor = 1.0 Layouts Considered: Median — Double Fixture (MD): Right -of -way ON Opposite /Square Table 2: Summary of Lighting Results -- Meeting IES Criteria Mounting Lamp Layout Calculated Estimate Avg Illuminance Uniformity Height Wattage Type Spacing of Required (Avg/Min) Ft. w Ft. +/- fc Criteria fc Criteria Fixture Met? Met? 15 65wLed R/W 55 4 1.15 Yes 2.3 Yes 15 65wLed MD 55 34 1.15 Yes 2.3 Yes Lely Golf Estates Beautification, MSTU, 08/2010 Pebble Beach Blvd. Accent Street Lighting Evaluation Page 7 1611 618 Table 2 Design Considerations: The 15 ft. mounting height median layout would require 4 additional single R/W fixtures in order to reach the northern most Big Springs Dr. intersection. The optimum fixture spacing in the medians for 15 ft. height fixtures is 85 feet ( + / -). Due to the shorter median lengths and holding a 10 foot setback from the median ends the optimum 85 foot spacing does not layout effectively. A median fixture layout in the medians holding a 10 foot setback from the ends would create a70 foot spacing between fixtures at the median openings and intersections. The 85 foot optimum spacing or increased mounting height above 15 feet will lose light distribution due to the canopy tree and palm tree foliage levels that exist in the medians. Table 3 Roadway Design Assumptions: Road Length = 2,000 ft. Number of Lanes = 2 Travel Lane Width = 13 ft. Bike Lane = 7 ft. Curbed Median Width = 10 ft. Valley Gutter Shoulder = 2 ft. Fixture R/W Setback = 7' Table 3 Design Criteria I ES RP8 -2000 Pavement = Asphalt -R3 Pedestrian Conflict Low Avg. Illuminance = 2:.4 fc Uniformity Ratio (Avg /Min) _ <_ 6.0 Table 3 Luminaire Evaluated 50 Watt Solar LED lamp (MH & R/W) Total Lumens per Luminaire = 3,000 Maximum Calculated Value = 2.24 fc Light Loss Factor = 1.0 Arm Length = 28" Layouts Considered: Median — Double Fixture (MD), Right -of -way (R/W) Opposite /Square Table 3: Summary of Lighting Results -- Meeting IES Criteria Mounting Lamp Layout Calculated Estimate Avg Illuminance Uniformity Height Wattage Type Spacing of Required (Avg/Min) Criteria Criteria Ft. w Ft. +/- Fixture fc Met? fc Met? 15.5 50wLed R/W 55 6 0.98 Yes 2.39 Yes 15.5 50wLed MD 55 34 1.24 Yes 3.26 Yes Table 3 Design Considerations: The optimum fixture spacing to meet minimum criteria for a 15.5 ft. height fixture is 35 feet ( + / -). A median fixture layout in the medians holding a 10 foot setback from the ends would create a70 foot spacing between fixtures at the median openings and intersections. This 70 foot spacing would not meet the lighting level criteria. Lely Golf Estates Beautification, MSTU, 08/2010 Pebble Beach Blvd. Accent Street Lighting Evaluation Page 8 Installed Lighting Systems Opinion of Costs Solar Vision Visionaire 15.5 ft. mounting height along rights -of -way 50W LED (34 double & 4 single fixtures) (Direct purchase fixture costs: $7,966.00 double & $4,770.00 single) (50% contractor markup for handling, setting, assembly, anchor base installations, $11,949.00 double fixture and $7,155 single fixture) 10 percent contingency included Lumec "Domus Small" 15 ft. mounting height in median & rights -of -way Locations, 60W CosmopolisTm lamp, luminaire with colored /painted non - luminous ring (34 double fixtures and 4 single arm fixtures) (Direct purchase fixture costs: $2,500 double & $1,500 single) (60% contractor markup for electrical panel, handling, assembly, setting, anchor base, conventional trenched & directional bore conduit & conductor installations, $4,400.00 double fixture and $2,640 single fixture) 10 percent contingency included Lumec "Domus Small" 15 ft. mounting height in median locations 65W LifeLED lamp, luminaire with colored /painted luminous ring (34 double fixtures and 4 single arm fixtures) (Direct purchase fixture costs: $2,700 double & $1,600 single) 16-11618 $434,886 $160,160 $172,832 (60% contractor markup for electrical panel, handling, assembly, setting, anchor base, conventional trenched & directional bore conduit & conductor installations, $4,752.00 double fixture and $2,816 single fixture) 10 percent contingency included Summary An electrical based 60 watt CosmopolisTm or 60 watt LED lamp system using the MSTU's existing type Lumec "Domus Small" double and /or single luminaire mounts and existing pole type would be the better initial and long term cost effective installation over a 20 year life cycle. The solar based system because of its initial high purchase costs is not an effective cost to return investment. With the solar based system having a $274,726.00 higher purchase and installation cost verses the electrical base lowest price system, over a 20 year period looking at energy cost only, electrical verses solar based ($2,000.00 per year), the solar based system would only generate a return of $40,000.00. Lely Golf Estates Beautification, MSTU, 08/2010 Pebble Beach Blvd. Accent Street Lighting Evaluation Page 9 m � =a sco - Co -.CNJ _7 O O gg .; 3 a s �. �I a �o y �� yo h 'TJ O � .y C b� y o o � CIO c n y � b O y h x orn IN= PLAN MATCHLINE A A 11► nm i aeArncs wiaN 1611818 Excew" in mun* ation i " Engineering Software AG since 1964 lighting software www.agi32.com by UghtftV AMOS 1a�'W4 0a1wM CeOMfN 2006 UyWiO �waMw Rst Roadway Optimizer Layout 1 General: Roadway Standard: IES RP -8 -2000 R- Table: R3 (Slightly Specular), 00 =0.07 Actual QO Value: 0.07 Roadway Layout: Layout Type: One Row, Median Mounted; 1R_MM Roadway Width: 24 Ft Median Width: 10 Ft Lanes In Direction Of Travel: 2 Driver's Side Of Roadway: Right Luminaire Information: Label: LED Description: DOS-60W30LED4K -LE4F File Name: LTL14153 (60W30LED4K- LE4F),IES Luminaire Arrangement: BACK -BACK Arm Length: 1.5 Ft Lumens Per Lamp: N.A. Number Of Lamps: 1 Luminaire Lumens: 2323 Efficiency M: N.A. Luminaire Watts: 68 Total Light Loss Factor: 1.000 Luminaire Location summary: Coordinates in Ft Label X -Coord Y -Coord Z -Coord Orient Tilt Spin LED 275 29 15.25 270 0 0 LED 220 29 15.25 270 0 0 LED 165 29 15.25 270 0 0 LED 110 29 15.25 270 0 0 LED 55 29 15.25 270 0 0 LED 0 29 15.25 270 0 0 LED -55 29 15.25 270 0 0 LED -110 29 15.25 270 0 0 LED -165 29 15.25 270 0 0 LED -220 29 15.25 270 0 0 LED -275 29 15.25 270 0 0 Total Number of locations: 11 1 AG172 /Roadway Optimlrar - Copyright 1999 -2010 by Lighting Analysts, Inc. b r-I O I I N m N N O.� W4 c a N N Al h m m I N r I 40 I n O I N m 10 1 n I m n n o a l ,r I ,Q n I r m n I m n f+ v I I 41 4� n O N m I 4P In n I 4r' i i *'' 4p 4p 4 t 1611818 IV OD vi to =n N M r+ �.I m N O 0 0 �riO4J4J4J 8 K 0 11 a aaa r,4)xatTxx N a z z a z z NI Excellence in Illumination Eno eWrV SoHwue since 1984 www.agi32.com — to aanwow, 1MOLO vAr4sivsk ift Roadway Optimizer - Layout 2 General: Roadway Standard: IES RP -8 -2000 R- Table: R3 (Slightly Specular), QO =0.07 Actual QO Value: 0.07 Roadway Layout: Layout Type: One Row, Median Mounted; 1R MM Roadway Width: 24 Ft Median Width: 10 Ft Lanes In Direction Of Travel: 2 Driver's Side Of Roadway: Right Label: Cosmo Description: 60CW- DOS -SG3 File Name: s02O6O7l.ies Luminaire Arrangement: BACK -BACK Arm Length: 1.5 Ft Lumens Per Lamp: 6900 Number Of Lamps: 1 Luminaire Lumens: 4034 Efficiency (8): 58 Luminaire Watts: ++,& GoW Total Light Loss Factor: 1.000 1611 B18 Luminaire Location Sunwary: Coordinates in Ft Label X -Coord Y -Coord Z -Coord Orient Tilt Spin Cosmo 275 29 15.25 270 0 0 Cosmo 220 29 15.25 270 0 0 Cosmo 165 29 15.25 270 0 0 Cosmo 110 29 15.25 270 0 0 Cosmo 55 29 15.25 270 0 0 Cosmo 0 29 15.25 270 0 0 Cosmo -55 29 15.25 270 0 0 Cosmo -110 29 15.25 270 0 0 Cosmo -165 29 15.25 270 0 0 Cosmo -220 29 15.25 270 0 0 Cosmo -275 29 15.25 270 0 0 Total Number of locations: 11 3 AQ32 /Roadway Optinizer - Copyright 1999 -2010 by Lighting Analysts, Inc. v I 0 N .9 .ri 0 V 4 it 10 fe 0 a I .4 r�l i.� rl 3 b b 3- -4 1611918 I 1 OD CD r- m (n r- f701N w%D %D LO �+ co rl ui O O O • -4 -H -4 4J 4J 4J U,-4 LO 0 «f N b K u n ac oc x > r-1 CI X G' CT X X z z z z 101 U H 11 b H h I N I }' 4" i~ ip III a r l o rf 4e I +0 o. N I m n j n ol I +0 4p I r N n 0 I 4- 4C; N O• I V � O1 i'1 b I V N h N 4" 4N i 41 4p I 1 OD CD r- m (n r- f701N w%D %D LO �+ co rl ui O O O • -4 -H -4 4J 4J 4J U,-4 LO 0 «f N b K u n ac oc x > r-1 CI X G' CT X X z z z z 101 U H 1611 818 EwAene in Illumination I Engkw@ V 5aftwwO sine 1984 i lighting software Y,,ww.agi32.COm 9 by L1ghtMg AWWn Roadway optimizer - Layout 3 General: Roadway Standard: IES RP -8 -2000 R- Table: R3 (Slightly Specular), QO =0.07 Actual QO value: 0.07 Roadway Layout: Layout Type: One Row, Median Mounted; 1R MM Roadway Width: 12 Ft Median Width: 10 Ft Lanes In Direction Of Travel: 1 Driver's Side Of Roadway: Right Label: CosM0 Description: 60CW-DOS -SG3 File Name: s02O6O7l.ies Luminaire Arrangement: BACK -BACK Arm Length: 1.5 Ft Lumens Per Lamp: 6900 Number Of Lamps: 1 Luminaire Lumens: 4034 Efficiency M: 58 Luminaire Watts: 414' GOW Total Light Loss Factor: 1.000 Lum -mire Location Summary: Coordinates in Ft X -Coord Y -Coord Z -Coord Orient Tilt Spin Label 275 17 15.25 270 0 Cosmo 220 17 15.25 270 0 0 Cosmo 165 17 15.25 270 0 0 Cosmo 110 17 15.25 270 0 0 Cosmo 55 17 15.25 270 0 0 Cosmo 0 17 15.25 270 0 0 Cosmo -55 17 15.25 270 0 0 Cosmo -110 17 15.25 270 0 0 Cosmo -165 17 15.25 270 0 0 Cosmo -220 17 15.25 270 0 0 Cosmo -275 17 15.25 270 0 0 Cosmo Total Number of locations: 11 1 AU32 /Roadway Optiaizer - Copyright 1999 -2010 by Lighting Analysts, Inc. i M N b a r ., MI 3 e of N sr N a� �Q1 rn -t' 01 +N rl Ol N V' +M N +� w M LO rn M +N O ri �N N LO 4r N LO Orr !` t` O +N 01 M M +N 1611'B18 f— 01N CO M W v uan �►co.�� 0 0 0 ...i-11-H 8Nt!)� b co b C a it a a oG OG o�Sa r40xlz v+xx H zx; zz NI 1611 B 18 Excellence in IUumanatlon Engineering Software since 1*4 www.agi32.com - 10. aan.weaOrpM •io�wA" ft Roadway optimizer - Layout 4 General: Roadway Standard: IES RP -8 -2000 R- Table: R3 (Slightly Specular), QO =0.07 Actual QO value: 0.07 Roadway Layout: Layout Type: One Row, Median Mounted; 1R MM Roadway Width: 12 Ft Median Width: 10 Ft Lanes In Direction Of Travel: 1 Driver's Side Of Roadway: Right Luminaires Information: Label: LED Description: DOS- 60W30LED4K -LE4F File Name: LTL14153_(60W30LED4K- LE4F),IES Luminaire Arrangement: BACK -BACK Arm Length: 1.5 Ft Lumens Per Lamp: N.R. Number Of Lamps: 1 Luminaire Lumens: 2323 Efficiency M: N.A. Luminaire Watts: 68 Total Light Loss Factor: 1.000 Luminaire Location sutmary: Spin 270 Coordinates in Ft 0 270 0 Label X -Coord Y -Coord Z -Coord LED 275 17 15.25 LED 220 17 15.25 LED 165 17 15.25 LED 110 17 15.25 LED 55 17 15.25 LED 0 17 15.25 LED -55 17 15.25 LED -110 17 15.25 LED -165 17 15.25 LED -220 17 15.25 LED -275 17 15.25 Total Number of locations: 11 AG02 /Roadway optisizar - Copyright 1999-2010 by Lighting Analysts. Inc. Orient Tilt Spin 270 0 0 270 0 0 270 0 0 270 0 0 270 0 0 270 0 0 270 0 0 270 0 0 270 0 0 270 0 0 270 0 0 3 ZA" N m N .9 .ri V b a H) 3 n N O -f" LO LO l0 M M 4H %D O 4r-1 l0 O +r/ M M 4r; Ln �O Ln t- 4r; N CD u N tG Ln �O O LO +r Co r-I M 4P LO 01 +O O r-1 O 44 LO W -r N i► (11N%9 NtTN ri rl •-i vLn(D o o%OOO 04j A Oa u n n a4aa to ►4 vAii y Yf \ \ \ H N X G' tT X X Na��a�ez d' in LL Cm CO Oro S 4r 7# pdya Cm CO Oro !j 010E .®. SOPPO-E V MOd11 A MMWQGd NuLm 3m inomi a= W 1VW W 03XKMk31I W ab o0 3R 1vn somwmn —. r ForM au ao ALM3do1W INDRR" 3NL N1nM SDMVW T#am= ONI/ SIKH 3S3N � Y � J J i d _ J W w ~ W w F- W L� 3J H tD C H A z Q 8 00 = S f'- 0 I �W W S Y iv z > A Q = U J IL 4 Z C3 Q Lu 38 a U W lu tl 9L W HFW- W� aU (4 , Q HXJ y C3 Z W J Z Ic ° N ' D CL LL p W N (r , ul rc �° > = i LD a a — ( Q W J 12 z O t— J ��FW- 01 =Wi a A Z W W Q 4J, Anil yWZQ C4 N � 3 ci �_� WJ X3 c.I OW 0- Jw -X �L OZ C3 X¢ W jv� (hN W F- 1 a-z A =W N tnda H3 3�OW 066 w L,> Z LL. > OL0 CC �o� ¢M Q W O Q M V1 'C .4 owl .+J m J XC3 CL �� P4 pLLI COQ ~yWX #p JN NU d 111 N� Jy a (UQW tU�Zid X(U20L z0 F- LJ L.1 O Q 2 Z� W pW OQ UQ UW M C3 La W0 WN a. (1 (')N J F-0 W Lj q fn W X OWC J z W �� O� I..UU M F- m ti q < M J W M ZO M F--I Vi Vl %0 Z Z S H t; Q C JZ W ¢ y t" M v u0- en F- 0 O Q! 04 W J W LAJ �Q F-W 7F- PQO� W V U'r�0 VatW A MW ' Z W ❑F-= �W W LL. H on J > > S C3 Qn a� W 6 .r • v / Z Z 'y �� LD W t7 � + Q' ., W Q O tz WA H J ~ W Q — ► F— W = p 0� WgQA� JAV I F- VW • �0 Z W H W W W F- zap i' NA L7QWQp' y0y J� A�OV �Q v R R.•. - Q J J N 4. ° Q LLI (/)qw 1F -O¢y^ WLJ J QAi A =U Qa � R �'.: � I A 3S ~ �_ 06 U �-WD tYuzwo WW2 J C+I�A UJ ~ swW W W WJ Q I— J 2 I I I. Z p a O J F- La -i �J Wq vlx << Q L� > -C 04 Z) 0 W U J ZMO 0- ZF- }W �rtiF- �Zr 1MV C3 • &J C3 �Zi Q � COQ -i F-U VZ WCZ (A A a. -j HZy�� Njn F- F-H 3 ZJ Q ZA W A ""O AUIWJO7 L-3 0- U� I ¢G.y ft!md Za z0 � 3 H-J M wZ ZQLJ L,,IQ30CWZ X VI O U W _ �a �4- Z" mm 2SF-Z ��.Q -��!}- %0 ,- VIZ J � ali W ~_j W ZJ LA- �':3 WL, L7F-AO -�W I 1 �Z ��` (U WP" Q Q � Z yJ W 0Q Qa' p �r Z �JHA.x.M MF ¢ 3 P4 • %0 W �Q V13 W ZWW -JZ., JO J�QV �OOAQ" I W Aq m U tZ' Q • Z H ¢ad 2: x A ~0= v0_AAvu q-y vw A Li I d P" I+a3 QFi Wy = WN ZWQce :W F- Z N 3 �L` y XQ ZPQq (4 y4lw F -W QU Vl I X Q o �RJ &I W2 OJT ZQL, }J Wzxz tUW M N \ NM Q Q 1--QZ OL7Ny T -I�Za ~ 00 o n1 F•- L7 • Z , =Q Qd �+ Qp.�W N �.Z MQ JQNF- J5LZZ 3U� L7 X .. ay ¢Wz 0- WQq- 0L7 T • to F•- t7 _ L, Vf _Z # �0 �F- Z, ZQZJOC Z+QA Qa JP0 �t UQZrra0 JW w Aq =J L) W ZWVfF~ -JJ }Q P w<< J WM A r �yAUQQa,ZA W ~y W¢ °MVl p� omuuumOW WO A F — >v3v1 AQ 0 M w W M 0 _jWWMZ0 WL�XF- J I`J UAF- F- F- (A xr, 1-0W UJWWU AM Q Z- "UUWWF -P UHy O =ZQQ UW aiJQZWWUWy.�ZZWw M �W ZQJF- OJJWO_Z ppgp U^ =q pW VIUWWZO.�aI3UU• li q�0 W ."'TWO ¢ ZUA l7 ~ (lJ (r1 � AW I _ "Z< f/fA JW0 ofuLO7 JZWaQ�Zr f fl Y po�j W J vi J W J W j p q t qi i< �a K o� LL W W O � ` y Wa WO Q F� LLWI � W s p y � LL � O W � m � < � NK NLL < y °y E z � W� pK� p LL� LL Ik � W- F- W C AI � Z A V `"J U O q U Q 00 Q w ti N O ti UN Q 0 ti N o Q* t �II W °.� � W i W � 25 VFl � O U W 1� O T a O pZ� U �y ACT. ZZ W K� � ° N Vl O W � W� zN �� iw��Zp�i Z � p�� W� � U mz52 {pR�� O a� <i � 8 � ° � IR O.am a i� K �.�z p m N y� U� �4 �W �� NZ � W S�o�W F � �� <� < rcm NJS �a �s F- W C AI � Z A V `"J U O q U Q 00 Q w ti N O ti UN Q 0 ti N o Q* t �II OW .®. —11 v a «oon so A 1611 818 MAN 3M M"AI =A tlO 1VO ?M Q90f1 HaN No O3" M A" SN MVVO MMU M U d ON 'ifliD63O 3HL i0 ALM3dOUA 1HOWAd00 Na p11113tl SOlAINIMO 1v9N1131 MV W" Spvk ; r Tw b e F� lips till k W ti Q J W 1LJ = 3 0 L J '~ Q °� J J Q F— J N W 3 F— W U z 0 U =in p 9i.j N 11 j t% (u 1 'M� a 3" ^ d jk-j. tJJH 4 qf M) Sag t L w 0 Q a F: J 0� _�F- rry-C 0N, —.J— — Z J Q U F-- W y w u U Z 0 U i 4� 6-Q MIN did . R a Aral i �9 :il Rill I �9B F- W cj M N Z q W � Q � Q O o� �o 00 �� o �O W W� w N c� O (w ` r� • I t I jr- 012 C 0 a d m to u S d J T 0 O a` 161 lal 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 r 8 8 88 8 88 8 8 °�' 8's n �QM 5 o o g M o N co o Q 25 g QQ� v °r° a M, co _ LQ M v t• N W N N Cl) M N Cl) ui N M CO COOP � : V, V, V, "-'1 V, V, V, V, V3 V, V, V, V, V). V, y,Q8Q � v 8 8 8 c1OO �. rtO. °o �i N �o°—o' 8 a 8 t�.t O8 o8 0) N p8 O N p8 O LO M v O g Ooo r rn W 11�A0 in fD N a of V, d, V, 61). V, V, V, V9. u, V, V, ur Vs «, V, ds V3, CO [f L+ V M C ' V r, V 00 l0 Ln V N N N to fA k LL N lt: li ti li Li m LL LL li m J W W J J J w w _1 W _1 _ _1 w — x ca LL O �O x S W 0 ~ z ~w m� FJz S Qo! lL LL D 0 w U F ')>- zm z w N w z pU a JU Wpm S� a- �g� w o a a0 a~ S z w � o� W wx� Uo. Uw O O() W LL r M Z w �U �r—cA U U � rL X LL w UW J iW p zwF z� Q� Ci a Z F O� Z m O U J W S r U CO W W 0_' C Ui (9 S a �, �, J W f- cA - o U U N Z J z a w LL � .. W of p O~ �w z U LL O LLI 0 z z� Xa C Cl) z Um X� Q w Z U z° <U LLZ J.. O �� wF U F a w 2 F' ca c) g moo: o Ua zJ J a w � 0 Q� Q Q g w } 0~ 0° = z • -: U Fz wZ o_ w m Q U 00 W o_. z a F a p F gx 3 N o U z ao w z J¢ °wWa R O m F 66. a�gZnu�ia ° o LLw a0 m m y Nom. � O w p F �x ZZ D! % In ry> ~ U � U U w o J 0 J� 0) CL 0 W Z N Ml V Fw0 LLd 0 N w D! o) �Z Q} w Q LL O o y O LL W c) J LL go W W w ww N w zp Z O F U F SU O F wxa K J cr z U: w O F u> z z o zo z O z U- " o a. (D w w O o Q 0 G o LL E w D: D_' O W Z WJ i 3 2 pj N � 0 N ° S °o 0 u 1611 B18 N+ O (O f7D V 9 N A W N + (O W V W N A W N+ O (O W V W N 414 N+ O b W V W N A W N a z7�7�1 �RwRm �� p; ppmpr�r ;U�Z�mOrZtnm- 1- �Z(�(�D�1��77 m <AZZZTOO D.Zmltx �Rj f7j ZZ DO D MAM�ZZ2Z�mAX�.Zmlmm D%��,�1� ZDmw2 DOD mmr�r m� m r� ONimL�G� rzD —Oyu {m pm�mTmm mzcn3 � Gr �mm �� Ocm �mA�p�oD3 �m6O— pzmOG�ip��m�� cnm�z�rDD Q z m 0 O z z Z= m v a D cn O �n < p m m w A Q --4 0 0 cpp �tncn c �� D��r�O� �Z Dn�mm CO DDpp �p0ZOm� >ZZ A8t Z mz��'z3Am mxm �am�A'"o�oo�k>aE ZKr cm )mm r,� A m mOO ��Z DDS DDS — pmz0� }z�� X �ZZ mm D CO Om r� ODOr(A �( 00 4 m m m crrm 3 << p D c Z K m A fA ;D m Z C n r m -< x pD O N1-1- 601"169 E4"11Al441691N169 69 60 1.0 (n (A 69 69 fA 69 69 E0 (A co (9 6911NI(AlfA 69 iA 60 69169160 co 69 69 6A 69 yN J { ° 8° 8S Cn O f9 N 69 Np N W co N fA fA N V fU A Of O OI O S S N N 88 888888888888 60 iA En 6960 63 EA 6960 (9696) 6A �•. a W A N (n W S N W A NW Nn OW O m O U 0D 60 EA H! 119 69 69 69 69 60 6A 60 (A (0 w R p '(pp8, K a 8 N (Nn V O W W W S 8 in 60 69 69 69 60 (0 E0 60 69 69 69 69 (A _ N =mv Z?3 DDDDD � C d 0 00 am -m 0- °(p N N P 888 8 8 0 fA co EA 6A (n 6A 69 69 69 6A I 6. 1. . I I I I (A (9 w 69 60 60 60 60 E0 69 w 69 =mv Z?3 DDDDD � C d 0 00 am -m 0- °(p M x <[��. 3 A m iK N N iK x �( d v& (( W W c N (D A v i:3 (3(pp. (3pp. 3? 41 lA N N N 6AO m n m E m m N (O S A bopb �I V > >° (D d O QW�p d N ONi OO OO (A 69 69 69 69 w 69 EA (A EA f9 fA 0-_ m 0 0 v �� (M . 6Np ((Ln pQN 6871 O (q0 O 8N OD a, fD N N� N (r O O 4�888i�8N8w�d�8 88w8888 W�888 6/?fn ?� C]333�3337C� � � 22T1 �7 m'rl 'rl �'ITb C1 C�0< m 9 (� m m r m m m> >.�.3 3- > c fn °� ^ ^ a oa na m m m D �1 o� ��•2 —fD OO N X m O D D D D D D 2 O 2 m ro m m c d 6yQ� f��j f��j m � 3 0 () fl a7 N O (D N C G(s O O Ol 0 W m 21 v g 61Dn (Dn 1 0 c m 3 3 m a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a O a a a a a a a a O �Y'Y'Y'Y'Y' cncr cn5�y�cncnY'Y' (n r W W. O 6N�nt (pn� .P M N N V �! 'U a W �! v (�pI 6��I N (n ()t (J^J� O� -+ (D (A S (O (A 60 W (J-! 0T� Of `< G O N (D C.; _ D DD Y.i D ��fi w Z�ZCF W S N (cnO 0 D 3 D D 0 cr d M 8 D C T rn .�► Z �v3 -a Cl) O N C O =mv Z?3 DDDDD � C d 0 00 am -m 0- °(p R R CC m n X2 2 '� (p ° Q� ban ° �p (D (O N (= v y3� '`$� O f 1`G1 <[��. 3 A m iK N N iK x �( d v& N d 3 N cb N c� r o Ci o N 8 n° 3m 3 3 d cep o op (3(pp. (3pp. 3? 41 lA N N N 6AO m n m E m m V > >° (D d 72mo�o� 0-_ m 0 0 v �� 0 r m f m + iX m W (rypv � 2 (0 69 60 60 60 6fl 60 69 69 69 60 69 Q) 69 6A 60 6A 60 69 69 69 60 60 60 EA 69 6fl 69 � W V W 3 m W N W W W� m y OD a N 6n m (O <O W C. N NN (n , N W �I O s E w f W O W (D S a (n (n (O O) N V W m O (n O a O N O (n O Ou O N O 20 N (T O O O Ut O (P ( O W O NN NN NN N NN NN N N "V( fA 6069 60 60 NNN "N" 60 (A EA L N W W CT of r s spa O� A ,(pn pA�p ONE Oaf oA� cp O� W (pp. Cn (1� (1� ((�p�I can ONO O (ll Cn N N N S p> pp A a (vn pW Uf -!+ aa+ (0,.1) (On fOp (Ln (Wn 0 D 3 D D 0 cr d M 8 D C T rn .�► Z �v3 -a Cl) O N C O 161 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit RW19EIVE"') JUL 3 0 200 ,,'Board of County Commissioners NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 2010 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION, WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 2010 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN✓ BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES. Fiala Halas AGENDA Henning Coyle The agenda includes, but is not limited: Coletta 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Approval 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. May 26, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Workshop b. June 2, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 4. Audience Participation 5. Administrator's Report a. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Update b. Governance Update C. Monthly Financial Report 6. Chairman's Report a. Peer Review of PBS&J Report Update b. Community Improvement Plan Priorities C. Management Contract Review d. Announcements 7. Community Issues B. Committee Reports and /or Requests 9. Old Business 10. New Business 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence a. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet 12. Audience Comments 13. 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 PEM&I"IAIV ERVI S DIVISION OFFICE AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT (239) 597 -1749. � I V Date: v Item #: 1 703010:40:43 AM `, nic1 s A'7. July 7, 2010 - Pelican Bay Services Division Regular Session Agenda Item S- Administrator's Report b -Governance Update _ Page 1 of 61611. 619 To: Board of Directors, Pelican Bay Foundation From: Bill Carpenter, Bob Uek, Mike Coyne, Henry Price, Jim Hoppensteadt, and Steve Feldhaus Date: June 25, 2010 Re: County Request to Consider Formation of Independent District within Pelican Bay Fred Coyle, Chairman of the Collier County Board of Commissioners, and Leo Ochs, Collier County Manager, have proposed that Pelican Bay consider the formation of an independent district to replace the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD), which is the Advisory Board for the Pelican Bay Municipal Services Taxing & Benefit Unit (MSTBU), which would also be replaced. Bill Carpenter, Chairperson of the Foundation, asked Vice Chairpersons Bob Uek and Mike Coyne, former Board member and Legal Committee member Henry Price, Foundation President Jim Hoppensteadt, and Foundation Secretary. Steve Feldhaus to join with him to conduct an initial analysis of the proposal and to report back to the Board. Steve Feldhaus made an initial verbal report to the Board at its May Board meeting, and this report is designed to bring the Board up to date on the efforts and recommendation of this Ad Hoc Committee. For ease of reference, the proposed independent district is referred to as the PBID, for Pelican Bay Independent District. What has occurred to date? • Fred Coyle and Leo Ochs proposed the formation of the PBID. • Foundation Chairperson Bill Carpenter formed an Ad Hoc Committee to evaluate the proposal and make a recommendation to the Foundation Board. • The Ad Hoc Committee hired Ken van Assenderp, an attorney in Tallahassee who is one of Florida's most respected experts in the field of special districts. He also was involved in the formation of the original Pelican Bay Independent District in the 1970s. • The Ad Hoc Committee had a number of meetings and conducted research on independent districts in Florida. • Steve Feldhaus and Jim Hoppensteadt, as representatives of the Ad Hoc Committee, met on June 11 with County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow, PBSD Chairman Keith Dallas, and PBSD Administrator Neil Dorrill, to discuss the multiple issues involved with the possible formation of the PBID. • The Ad Hoc Committee prepared and authorized the release to the Board of this interim report. What would the purpose of the PBID be? The PBID would be a single purpose district, designed to maintain the infrastructure of Pelican Bay.. The other basic services currently being provided by the County— fresh and effluent water, sewer, waste, schools, libraries, enforcement of building codes, police, fire, and emergency services — would continue to be provided by Collier County using Collier County infrastructure and would continue to be paid for with ad- valorem tax dollars levied by the County against Pelican Bay property. June 25, 2010 Memorandum to Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors RE: County Request to Consider Formation of Independent District within Pelican Bay 0613012010 130 PM July 7, 2010 -Pelican Bay Services Division Regular Session Agenda item 5- Administrator's Report b- Governance Update Page 2of 6 B 19 16111 What is involved in the process of creating the PBID? • There are a lot of moving parts, involving the County, our legislative delegation, and our members. • We would have to reach agreement with the County on the powers of the PBID and precisely what assets and liabilities would be transferred into it. • We would have to obtain the support of our legislative delegation for legislation to create the PBID. • We would have to obtain the support of a majority of registered voters. There is no actual requirement for such a straw vote, but as a practical matter our legislative delegation would not support the legislation unless they are sure that they are following the will of the electorate. A straw vote could be held prior to any legislation being introduced in Tallahassee, or the legislation could be drafted to be subject to a favorable election after passage of the legislation. • We would probably also want to take the pulse of our membership on the issue, perhaps via a vote at an Annual Meeting of Pelican Bay members. This would ensure that all members, and not just registered voters, have an opportunity to have their voices heard on this important issue. What are the pluses and minuses of the PBID? Pluses: • We would be able to elect our own governing Board, without the need for the results to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and without vacancies being filled by the BCC. • The governing Board of the PBID would be able to make decisions regarding the matters within its jurisdiction without needing the approval of the BCC. We would no longer be under the budget control of the County. • A locally controlled PBID Board may be able to provide services, systems, and facilities to Pelican Bay more cost efficiently, and at a higher quality, than the County has been able to provide. • Generally, the PBID would fund its operations on the same basis as the MSTBU, that is, it would levy non ad- valorem assessments, on a unit basis. The Board of the PBID would also have the power to levy ad- valorem taxes to carry out special functions (that could also be a minus —see below). That power can be limited in the legislation to require, for example, the prior approval of the voters before any ad- valorem tax can. be levied. • Depending upon what concessions we are able to obtain from the County, we may be able to obtain title to all the property that was owned by the original PBID when it was taken over by the County in 1990, with the exception of the wells, water treatment facilities, etc, as well as the assets currently being used by the PBSD in Pelican Bay. This could include the 12 acre parcel by the golf course. It could also include all the easements that the original PBID obtained from WCI, such as the easement to construct and maintain the berm. Presumably, we would also obtain title to the roads and the right of ways on each side of the road, as well as the real estate at each entrance to Pelican Bay where our signage is currently located, since this is now owned by the County. It is even possible to speculate that we might be able to deal with Clam Bay issues in connection with our negotiations with the County over the formation of the PBID. We may even be able to resolve the issue of the County Ordinance regarding non - potable water. June 25, 2010 Memorandum to Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors RE: County Request to Consider Formation of independent District within Pelican Boy 0613012010 1:30 PM July T, 2010 - Pelican Bay Services Division Regular Session Agenda Item 5- Administrator's Report-b- Governance Update Page 3 of 6 16 �1 B19 We would also expect that the several million dollar capital surplus in the MSTBU would be transferred to the PBID. We would be in control of the roads of Pelican Bay. Presumably, that would make it more difficult for the County to do things like open up Crayton Road at Seagate, which has been previously proposed. We would also be able to resurface our roads more regularly than the County has been willing to do. We may be able to include powers in the PBID that would assist us in our efforts to control what we are calling redevelopment in Pelican Bay. We also can include powers in PBID legislation to make possible joint efforts that would not be possible for individual members or individual condominium associations to achieve. As an example, the PBID could issue bonds to finance individual installation of solar panels. The PBID could then assess individual owners or condominium associations who wish to participate for the amounts advanced to them, with the assessments being paid over 25 years out of electricity cost savings. The assessments would be used to repay the bonds. End result: a community with green, low cost solar electricity generation built at no net cost to its members. Minuses BCC Chairman Fred Coyle has indicated that he is pursuing this proposal out of a belief that there is no reason for the County to be involved in the delivery of the services, systems, and facilities that Pelican Bay residents tax themselves to pay for (via the MSTBU). However, it is also likely that the formation of the PBID would involve the PBID taking on some responsibilities, such as maintaining the roads of Pelican Bay, that are not currently the responsibility of the PBSD. It is thus possible that it could cost us more to operate the PBID than we are currently taxing ourselves via the MSTBU to pay for the operation of the PBSD. How much more the cost would be needs to be determined, and we also need to determine whether we can negotiate a "rebate" of some of the taxes we pay to the County in orderto reduce the costs we would be assuming. • The PBID would have the power to levy non -ad- valorem assessments, just as are currently levied under the MSTBU. The county would also have the power to levy ad- valorem taxes on our property, but these taxes could only be to fulfill the purpose of the PBID, which would be to maintain the infrastructure of Pelican Bay. We can (and should) limit this power in the PBID's governing documents by requiring the approval of the electorate before such taxes can be levied. • We would have to be a bit more careful than we perhaps are now in segregating what the PBID does with respect to its property and what it does with respect to Foundation property. There should be no net change in cost, but if, for example, the PBID undertakes to maintain the Foundation's parks, it would seem that the Foundation would have to pay for that service. • The possibility exists that a future Board of the PBID could see the world differently than a future Board of the Foundation. We now have that problem with the County with respect to Clam Bay, but the County generally leaves us alone to manage our own affairs otherwise. A strong PBID Board with a vision contrary to the vision of a Foundation Board could create problems for our community. • We would need to determine the type of Board we would want for the PBID. We will want to examine carefully what checks and balances can be put into the legislation to ensure that the Board members exercise their responsibilities wisely. June 25, 2010 Memorandum to Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors RE: County Request to Consider Formation of Independent District within Pelican Bay 00012010 1:30 PM July 7, 2010 - Pelican Bay services Division Regular Session Agenda Item 5- Administrator's Report h- Governance Update Page 4 of 6 161-11 19 We would need to be certain that all liabilities associated with any employees Who might e transferred to the PBID, such as pension obligations, are adequately funded by the County. The bottom line seems to be that there are clear pluses, but that the extent of those pluses needs to be determined in negotiations with the County, and in understanding what powers the PBID can have, and that at the same time there are clear minuses, in particular any extra costs that we would be assuming, as well as the potential for future taxation, which again would need to be determined in negotiations with the County and in our structuring of the PBID. What next steps the Foundation should take? At our.meeting on June 11, we asked County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow what assets and liabilities the County contemplated transferring to the PBID and what powers it envisioned for the PBID. Mr. Klatzkow stated that the County is desirous of providing Pelican Bay with the independence that Pelican Bay has been seeking, and that it would be more appropriate for Pelican Bay to tell the County what it wishes for the PBID. Accordingly, we recommend that the Board authorize the Ad Hoc Committee to evaluate what services, systems, and facilities might be desirable for inclusion in the PBID, and what the cost of each might be, as well to evaluate what powers the PBID should have and any other considerations that should be taken into account. We break these down into three general categories as follows: 1. The functions currently being performed by the PBSD, as well as road maintenance. 2. The possible transfer of the land owned by the original PBID to the PBID, as well as the possible resolution of Clam Bay issues and the non - potable water issue. 3. The potential for the PBID to be able to undertake joint efforts, such as the installation of clean energy devices, which would not be possible for individual owners or condominium associations to achieve. • We recommend that the Foundation establish an informational and educational campaign for both our members and the larger community on the possible conversion of the PBSD and the MSTBU into the PBID. • We recommend that beginning this Fall the Foundation schedule a number of community workshops on this issue in order to obtain input from our members. • We anticipate that contacts with the County will be ongoing throughout this process, and that subsequent reports will be made to the Foundation Board and to the community about this project. • We recommend that the Ad Hoc Committee be expanded to include the President of the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association. We believe that the Ad Hoc Committee should remain small but that it would be desirable to have a representative of our larger community on the Committee. What the timetable might be? June 25, 2010 Memorandum to Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors RE. County Request to Consider Formation of Independent District within Pelican Bay 06/3012010 130 PM July 7, 2010 - Pelican Bay Services Division Regular Session Agenda Item 5-Administrator's Report b- Governance Update Page 5of 6 16 I.t 1 B19 We believe that this evaluation should proceed in a careful and deliberative manner, and that consideration by our community should take. place during the upcoming Fall and Winter seasons. • if progress is made on this project, and the Foundation Board decides that it would like to proceed to a next step, we would advise that the Foji,nflation'F mer))bergF# be asked to vote on this issue at the 2011 Annual Meeting. • Depending upon the outcome of that vote, the Foundation Board can decide how and whether it wishes to proceed. The earliest that the legislation could be introduced in Tallahassee would be the 2012 Session. What will the fiscal implications of this process be for the Foundation both for this year and for subsequent years? • If the Foundation Board decides to continue to pursue this, which we recommend, the Foundation will incur costs for Ken van Assenderp and for Dolly Roberts, who will assist us on our educational and informational campaign. We believe that these hourly costs will be relatively modest, in the range of $15,000 for this fiscal year, with perhaps slightly more costs being incurred next fiscal year to reach a decision point on going forward or not. • If the Foundation decides to proceed with legislation, our very rough and preliminary estimate is that the Foundation will wind up spending perhaps up to $150,000 between the point a decision is made to pursue legislation and the formation of the PBID, if the legislation is successfully passed. We will need to refine that estimate as we go forward. • It should be possible forthe Foundation to recoup a substantial portion of these costsfrom the PBID if we do go forward and the legislation is successfully passed. • We also need to determine whether there will be any increased costs to the Foundation going forward in operating with the PBID as opposed to operating with the PBSD and the MSTBU. That will require a careful analysis of how the Foundation is currently operating with the PBSD and MSTBU and. how it will be allowed to operate with the PBID. What would the fiscal implications of the PBID be for our members? • We need to determine what the bottom line will be for our members with respect to assessments from the PBID, as opposed to their current assessments with respect to the MSTBU, both as the outset of the PBID and potentially for future years. This will obviously depend on the outcome of any negotiations with the County. • We will need to have a very clear and firm handle on what the potential for PBID assessments and taxation in future years might be, and what procedures we can put in place to control the power to tax. What reactions should be expected from our members and how should we plan to deal with them? • We believe that our members will want to know what this is going to cost them, now and potentially in the future. As indicated above under fiscal implications, we will need to have a firm handle on this issue. June 25, 2010 Memorandum to Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors RE: County Request to Consider Formation of Independent District within Pelican Bay 0613012010 1.30 PM July 7, 2010 - Pelican Bay Services Division Regular Session Agenda Item S- Administrator's Report b- Governance Update Page 6 of 6 16 1 T B 19 Many in our community will view this as "incorporation light." We need to appreciate that and be prepared to address the concerns that are inherent in that viewpoint. in that regard, we note that we have been advised that communities that form an independent district rarely progress to incorporation. Thus, a decision to form the PBID should practically be viewed as effectively precluding incorporation. Why isn't the PBSD Board handling this? The PBSD Board, which is elected by our members, nonetheless reports to and is responsible to the BCC. We anticipate that we will receive a great deal of cooperation from the PBSD Board members, and from Neil Dorrill, and that we should work closely with all of them. However, they are subject to Florida Sunshine laws, and we will need to ensure that we retain the confidentiality of our internal deliberations and determinations as we negotiate with the County over these matters. June 25, 2010 Memorandum to Pelican Bay foundation Board of Directors RE: County Request to Consider formation of Independent District within Pelican Bay 0613012010 1:30 PM CUnU t Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Currant Assets Total Assets Current Usbultles Accounts/Trade Payable Accrued Wages Payable Goods Received /Inventory RWd Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total liabilities and Fund Balance Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - June 30, 2010 Operating Fund 109 jUnsudited) 1,672,382.66 July 7,1010 Pelican Boy Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda Item 5- Administrator's Report-c- Monthly Financial Report 16 11.1 B 1 $ 1,672,382.66 $ 1,672,382.66 mobilities and Fund Balance $ (18,466.75) (8,483.39) (1,715,639.09) 70,206.57 $ (26,950.14) (1,645,43252) $ (1,672,382.66) Monthly Financial Report Month - Ending June 2010 Page 1 of 11 071061201012:08 PM � July 7, 201 wn Bay[ . B19 ion Agenda item 5 Administrator's Report Monthly Financial Report Pelican Bwcmr *nlI Munmw Savloes Taft (Jolt Income StatemwA w/ mat -Jane 3% 2010 Operating fond 109 (Uneudiled) Carr*rward Special Assessment - Water Management Administration Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification Charges for Services Surplus Property Sales Interest Total Oparafittg Revenues Water MetwSematt Administration Payroll Expense White Goods IT Direct Client Support indirect Cost Reimbursement Other Contracturai Services Telephone Postage Trash and Garbage Rent Buildings and Equipment insurance - General Printing, Binding and Copying Clerk's Recording Fax Advertising Other Office and Operating Supplies Fertilkw/Herb Chemicals Training and Education Total Water Mansgement AdmYtktration Operating Weber Mwmwmrwtt Held Operations (10,000.00) for equipment reserves $ 742,500.00 $ 715,217.91 $ (27,282.09) 1,922,500.00 11851,95108 (70,54792) 11500.00 - (11500.00) 1,08L40 13,043.00 13,043.00 40,500.00 101506.18 (29,993.82) 2,697,000.00 2~Jt V (116,21111m) $ 44,5,00.00 $ 31,827.48 $ 12,672.52 181300.00 - $ 18,300.00 4,100.00 3,075.00 1,025.00 117,600.00 117,600.00 - 16,6WM 16,600.00 - 21,300.00 10,575.00 10,725.00 4,100.00 2,058.70 2„041.30 3,000.00 47.85 2,952.15 - 1,08L40 (11081.40) 13,400.00 11,160.41 2,239.56 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 32,75650 2,98120 (2,9$1.20) 11100.00 379.23 720. 255,861.57 200,7i9.i2 55,092.45 Payroll Expense 1A8,600.W 110.501.04 38,098.96 Engineering Fees 12,000.00 - 12,000.00 Flood Control Water Mgmt. 14,000.00 2,468.00 11,532.00 Flood Control Replanting Program 81500.00 1,975.00 6,525.00 Interdepartmental Payment 21,100.00 11,891.00 9,209.00 Plan Revlew Fees 11500.00 - 1,500.00 Other Conbractural Services 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 Temporary Labor 42,400.00 32,75650 9,643.50 Telephone 500.00 325.80 174.20 Postage - 272.00 (272.00) Trash and Garbage 8,300.00 5,728.32 2,57L68 Electricity - - - Motor Pool Rental Charge - 47.60 (47.60) Insurance - General 2,600.00 11950.00 650.00 Insurance - Auto 3,600.00 2,700.00 900.00 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 4,500.00 2,696.47 1,=.53 Fuel and Lubricants 2,000.00 4,237.38 (2,237.38) Ttee Triming 27,600.00 14060.00 9,540.00 Clothing and Uniforms 11900.00 3,867A8 (1,967.48) Monthly Financial Report Month- Ending June 2010 page 2 of 11 07/06/201012.08 PM Personal Safety Equipment Fertilizer and Herbicides Other Repairs and Maintenance Other Operating Supplies Told Water Management Raid Operations Operating Right of Wary Se audk000e Payroll Expense White Goods IT Direct Client Support Other Contrectural 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 OeeutNkation Operating Right of Way ' auWkation - Field Payroll Expense White Goods Flood Control Pest Control Other Contractural Services Temporary tabor Travel Professional Development Telephone Trash and Garbage Water and Sewer Ekctricity 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 Sprinider Maintenance Painting Supplies Traffic Signs Minor Operating Equipment Other Operating Supplies Total Right of Way SOUNI edw - Field Operating Total Opa-Ok Expo efturm b I 1 l/y�' I Ju �10 Pelk rvi iR1n 9rd Regular Session ly 1 Agenda Item 5 Adminlstrator's Reports- MorKhly Rnmrcial Report 500.00 - S00.00 98AWX 56,55L42 41,848.56 1,50000 9,323.00 (7,823.00) 2,500.00 3,58292 (1,08292) 40BAODM 26frN1M iM,066ro7 45,600.00 32,545.88 13,054.12 161900.00 - 16,900.00 4,200.00 3,150.00 1,05000 28,00000 12,527.0 15.473.0 3,900.00 2,058.70 1,84L30 3,000.00 22.00 2,978.00 13,800.00 11,480.78 2,319.22 500.0 375.00 125.00 - 466.80 (466.80) 2,600.00 - 2,600.00 2,000:00 - 2,000.00 2,000.00 - 2,000.0 4,774.26 2,40435 2,36991 1150000 - 1,500.00 12477426 65AWS1 63,7,4375 806,700.00 564,055.89 242,644.11 3,300.00 - 3,300.00 130,400.00 107,137.22 23,262.78 6,500.0 - 61500.00 29,500.00 28,026.44 1,473.56 211,800.00 134,14258 77,65742 47,100.00 642-87 (642.0 3,800.00 2,359.15 1,440.85 24,900.00 11,086.24 13,813.76 3,400.00 1,900.05 1,49995 81500.00 2,988.39 5,511.61 800.00 216.00 584.00 12,200.00 9115000 3,050.00 9,300.00 6,975 -00 2,325.00 29x400.00 19,426.15 9,973.85 47,100.00 25,107.41 21,992.59 800.00 339.78 460.22 251000.00 31,09 W (6,095.00) 12,000.00 3,410.99 8,55901 3,000.00 1,34L71 1,658.29 581500.00 51,370.50 7,129.50 60,200.00 43,24535 16,954.65 30.000.00 13,495.60 16,504.40 11500.00 - 11500.0. 3,000.00 530.00 2,470.00 300.00 4,324.14 (1,324.14) 111500.0 17,846.47 (6,346.47) i,S8 ANAI0 1,Op 20 93 45SA57-o7 2,323„ 735.83 1,6L4AULAIS 701,75934 Monthly financial Report Month - Ending June 2010 Page 3 of 11 07/06/201012.08 PM Capkal EaperiftOr : Water Mkt Adniribbadon Other Machinery and Equipment Total Water Marweentatt Adminbbvelon Capita Water lilw apmattt Held Operations General Improvements Total Water Manapment Held Operations Capital Rwa of way 8eattdkealon Other Machinery and Equipment TOW fdgbt of Way m l DWNeatlon Capild Right of Way eputlRatlan - Halal Building Improvements Autos and Tnxis Other Machinery wW Equipment' Total Right of Way 8saullkodon - Halal CapRal TOW Capital EMMKIltares TOW Eapattdittarts Opwafthw(LON) Non- Oparatitts Revenues and (Expanal4xa)% Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Revenue Reserve Told ""40eratitl8 Rawattas and B*mwkurw, net Net humv(UM) 161:1 B19 July 4 2010 Pelican Bay Services DiMsion Board Regular Session Agenda item 5- Administrator's Report -c- Monthly Financial Report 11000.00 430.45 569.55 11000.00 430A5 569.55 13,200.00 1,370,47 111829.53 13,200.00 1,370,47 11,829.53 11000.00 - 11000.00 11000.00 - 11000.00 13,600.00 6,863,40 6,737.00 26,000.00 25,462.00 538.00 24,0MW 18,217.34 5,782.66 63,800.00 50,542.64 13,087.66 78,800,40 52,343.26 26,458.74 Z 404535.83 1,667,319.75 735,216.08 294,AM17 9Q3,381.42 629.935.25 (82,500.00) (51,343.33) 31,156.67 (75,200.00) (40,519.86) 34,680.14 (140,000.00) - 140,000.00 (297,70040) (91.813.19) 206,18M (36US .25) 831,53623 894x772.06 Monthly Financial Report Month - Ending June 2010 Page 4 of 11 07/06/201012:08 PM 16 1 919 July 7, 2010 pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda Item 5-Administrator's Report- c-Monthly Financial Report Pelican Bay Servkes Municipal Services Taft Unit Balance Sheet - June 30, 2010 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Una) Cash and Investments $ 256,274.84 Interest Receivable - Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets $ 256,274.84 Total Assets $ 256,27444 Wb88ies and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ (2,426.51) Goods Received /Inventory Reold (49.39) Accrued Wages Payable - Total LiablNtks $ (2,475.90) Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved (314,193.43) Excess Revenue s) 60,394.49 Total Fund Balance (253,798.94) Total LbbNkks and Fund Balance $ (256,274.84) Monthly Financial Report Month - Ending June 2010 page 5 of 11 07/06/201011:08 pM Operating Revenues: Car yforward Curent Ad Valorem Tax Interest Total Operating Ravanuas Operating dipires: Street Lighting Administration Payroll Expense White Goods IT Direct Client Support Indirect Cost Reimbursement Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage Rent Buildings and Equipment and Storage Insurance - General Storage Rental Office Supplies General Other Office and Operating Supplies 16 Jul 7 2010 Pe sego Sea awlegufar Session Y Agenda Item 5- Administrator's Reportt-Monthly Financial Report Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit income Statement w/ Budget - June 30, 2010 Sum Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Budget Actual Variance (300.00) $ 285,700.00 $ 275,495.02 $ (10,204.98) 4,60000 1,436.29 (3,163.71) 2900M 276,931.31 (13,36869) $ 33,90000 $ 23,836.70 $ 10,063.30 19,800.00 - $ 19,800.00 4,100.00 3,075.00 1,025.00 6,700.00 6,70000 - 20AMW 10,575.00 10,225.00 4,100.00 1,489.74 2,610.26 2,000-0 3.40 1,996.60 13,40000 10,999.05 2,400.95 400.00 300.00 100.00 - 291.75 (291.75) 500.00 1,761.57 (1,26L57) 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 Total Street L%hft Administration Operath 106,700 -0 5,032.21 47,667.79 Street Lighting Field Operation Payroll Expense White Goods Travel Professional Development Telephone Electricity Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and lubricants Other Equipment Repairs Personal Safety Equipment Electrical Contractors Light Bulb Ballast Total Street Lighting Field Operations Ope rw 54,000.00 38,81L81 15,188.19 14,500.00 - 14,500.00 2,752.81 (2,752.81) 2,300.00 162.90 2,137.10 44,20000 23,169.08 21,030.92 800.00 600.00 200.00 1,100.00 825.00 275.00 1,300.00 2,499.92 (1,199.92) 900.00 427.05 472.95 200.00 - 200.00 500.00 - 500.00 7,300.00 - 7,300.00 12,400.00 6,859 77 5,540.23 139 -SM OD 764308.34 63,39L66 Monthly Financial Report Month- Ending June 2010 Page 6 of ll 071061201012:08 PM Total Operating Expenditures Capital Expenditures: Street Lig Administration 16 I IBIftg dR eJul Y 7, 2010 Pf can Boy Se ry Se o n Agenda Hem 5- Administrator's Report- c- M ontf►ty Financiaf Report 2442011.00 335,140.55 111,059.45 Other Machinery and Equipment 1,000.00 443.49 556.52 Total Street Lighting Adrniristration capkd 1 ,000.00 "3.49- 556.51 Street lighting Field Operations General Improvements 13,200.00 8,232.00 4,968.00 Total Street Lighting Field Operations Capital 13,200.00 8:232.00 4,968.00 Total Capital Expenditures Total AN Expenditures Ong Profit/(Loss) Non - Operating Revenua and (Eupendituresj: Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Revenue Reserve Total Non, Operating Reuenues and Expendku Net PMW(Loss) U,�00.00 8,675.49 5,524.51 260,400.00 143,816.011 114583.96 29,600.00 133,11527 103,515.27 (8,80000) (5,525.58) 3,274.42 (5.MOO) (1.139.90) 4,660.10 (15,000.00) - 151000.00 (29,600A01 (6,61 L48) 22,934.92 126A 9.79 126,419.79 Monthly Financial Report Month - Ending June 1010 Page 7 of 11 071061201012:08 PM Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assns Total Assets Current LiabRities Accounts/Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory RecVd Accrued Wages Payable Total Llabititles Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabliities and Fund Balance 161.1 B19 4 Ju 7 2010 Pelkan Servicesal6Jslon Board Regular Session �'y eg Agenda Item S- Administrator's Report-c- Monthly Rnandal Report Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxft Unit Balance Sheet - June 30, 2010 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) $ 476,600.23 476,600.23 $ 476,600.23 Uablitles and Fund Balance $ (522.50) $ (522.50) (1,045.00) (392,850.20) (82,705.03) (475,555.23) $ (476,600.23) a� Monthly Rnandal Report Month - Ending June 2010 Page 8 of 11 071061201012:08 PM 1g1 July 7, 2010 Pelican Services DBon Boar Regular Session Agenda item 5- Administrator's Report c Morrthly Financial Report Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - June 30, 2010 Clam Bay fund 320 (Unaudiad) FY 2010 Budget Actual Variance 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 Clem Bay Restoration Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Total Clam Bay Ecosystem Total Clam fay Operating Expenditures Total Revenue/(Expenditures) Non - Operating Revenues and (�): Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Revenue Reserve Reserve Total Non - Operating Revenues and Not Profit/(Low) $ 350,900.00 $ (350,900.00) 102,400.00 98,444.44 (3,955.56) 102,400.00 35,000.00 (67,400.00) 2,890.65 2,890.65 555,700.00 136,335A3 (419,364,91) $ 83,100.00 $ 14,038.75 $ 69,061.25 83,500.00 12,480.00 71,020.00 - 22.04 (22.04) 500.00 89.50 410.50 2,400.00 - 2,400.00 500.00 - 500.00 170,000,iDO 26,630.2.9 143,369.71 25,00000 350,000.00 22,900.00 2,100.00 - 350,000.00 375,000.00 22,900.00 352,100.00 545,000AO 4!9,530.29 495,469.71 10.700.00 66,,604.60 76.100.60 (3,200.00) (1,968.90) 1,231.10 (2,100.00) (1,535.04) 564.96 (5,400.00) - 5,400.00 Expenditu (10L700AN (3150L" 7,196.06 83,300.86 83,300 Monthly Rnancial Report Month- Endinglune 2010 page 9 of 11 2 07/06/201012:06 PM Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable Goods Received Inv. Received Total LlabMtka Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Tool Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 161.1 919 July 7, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda Item 5- Adminisbatoes Reports- Monthly Financial Report Peikan Bay Servkes Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - June 30, 2010 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) $ 2,001,538.83 �7 .7' . 452.36 (1,030,261.41) (971,729.78) 2,001,538.83 $ 2,001,538.83 452.36 (2,001,99L19) $ (2,001,538.83) Monthly Financial Report Manth- Ending June 2010 Page i0 of ii 071061201012.08 PM 1611191.9 July 7, 2010 Pelican Bay.-endces Division Board Regular Session Agenda Item 5- Adminisbator's Report-c- Monthly Finandal Report Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - June 30, 2010 Capital Projects Fund 372 (Unaudited) FY 2010 Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Special Assessment Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Irrigation S tandsaping Engineering Fees Interdept. Payment Other Contractural Services Licenses and Permits Total Irrigation dt Landscaping 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 Fxpeod8 wM Net Profit/(Loss) $ 2,029,500.00 55,900.00 53,845.29 (2,054.71) 191800.00 14,136.49 (5,663.51) 21105120.00 67,981.78 (7,71$.22) $ 175,000.00 $ 25,437.80 $ 149,562.20 1,924,500.00 155,624.43 1,768,875.57 237.85 (237.85) 2,099.500.00 183,900.08 11912,L"32 $ (902,000.00) $ (902,000.00) $ - (186,400.00) (186,400.00) $ - (%700.00) (1,076.94) 623.06 (1,100-0) (837.97) 262.03 (2,900.00) - 2,900.00 jj,wt1oaoa (1„ O$AAODAO I_ W t 3„785.09 (M,23"1) Monthly Financial Report Month - Ending June 2010 Page 11 of 11 071061201012:08 PM 16�Tg19 July 7, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda Item 6- Chairman's Report -a -Peer Review of PBS8V Report Update Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work March 15, 2010 March 19, 2010 —Rev. 1 June 25, 2010 — Rev. 2 June 30, 2010 — Rev. 3 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 4 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 5 Background 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, the BCC authorized that a recognized expert perform an independent review of the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report recently completed by PBS &J. To complete this analysis, a thorough review of all available water quality data including the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) historical water quality data is required. This expert, jointly selected by PBSD and Coastal Zone Management (CZM), will be from an academic, university, research institute or national estuary program and not directly involved with any consulting firm. Additionally, this individual will be independent without any material relationship with the PBSD, the Pelican Bay Foundation or Collier County government. The review of the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis Report is proposed to be conducted early in the development of the water flushing /circulation model. It is also recommended that the cost of this effort be split between the PBSD and CZM. Although the financial commitment from the PBSD is only for the report evaluation, the intent is to have the PBSD participate in Water Circulation /Flushing Modeling Program review along with any development of the management plan(s) that may be created that includes the Clam Bay NRPA. Consideration A thorough review of the PBSD report should involve a number of critical sciences. Among others, these disciplines would involve water quality, marine biology, modeling /hydrology, geology, natural estuary/ecosystems and with respect to the proposed water flushing /circulation model program a comprehensive and through knowledge of water quality and Florida water quality standards /guidelines along with modeling, modeling data and collection methodologies. The water quality expertise that is required here is not just the review and analysis to state standards but also expertise with respect to the proactive development of our specific water quality standards for the Clam Bay estuary system and the establishment of our own multi -year estuary management program that will address critical water quality issues as opposed to having FDEP establish solutions. While other skill sets are important, the vast majority of the reviewer expertise needs to be focused in these discipline areas. Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work - July 1, 2010 -Rev. 5 Page 1 of 2 7121201010.27:55AM 61 July 7, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda item 6- Chairman's Report-a -Peer Review of PBSW Report Update Activities to be performed during this initial Peer Review 1. Review, analysis and critique of the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report dated October 2009 performed by PBSU to include: • Analysis of all available historical data including the Services Division's historical data /information. • Sufficiency of the Data collection efforts undertaken in the development of the PBSU Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report given the fragile nature of the Clain Bay NRPA, the contracting constraints and ability to augment data with future collection, and the applicability of using the collected data in the proposed water circulation /flushing model program. • Methodologies used in the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report performed by PBSU. • Findings and conclusion of the report. Evaluation of Proposals Pre - Identified candidates will be solicited to submit credentials to perform a Peer Review of the PBSU Data Collection and Analysis report. Only pre- identified candidates will be allowed to submit proposals for evaluation. The Collier County purchasing department would initiate this solicitation. All proposals will be jointly evaluated and must be acceptable to both Collier County Coastal Zone Management /CAC and the Pelican Bay Services Division. The Evaluation and Selection process is outlined as follows: 1. Candidates will submit their qualifications, experiences, related work history and schedule for consideration. This summary should not be more that 4 pages in total length and focus on water quality, marine biology, hydrology, geology, natural estuary/ecosystems and with respect to the proposed water flushing /circulation model program a comprehensive and thorough knowledge of water quality and Florida water quality standards /guidelines along with modeling, modeling data and collection methodologies. 2. Selection will be based on a total composite score. This score will be based on knowledge, experience, work history and background in similar ecosystems as per the criteria listed in item one above. Schedule will also be considered in this evaluation. 3. The Pelican Bay Services Division will perform their own independent evaluation and submit their three top candidates for discussion. Coastal Zone Management/CAC will do the same. The six potential candidates will be jointly evaluated by a committee consisting of The Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Vice Chair of the Pelican Bay Services Division, and the director /Manager of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Chairman of the CAC, the Vice Chair of the CAC and the Director of the CZM. This group will select and recommend the final candidate. 4. The final selection must be acceptable to both the Pelican Bay Services Division and the CZM /CAC. The final candidate will be approved by the BCC. Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work- July 1, 2010 -Rev. 5 Page 2 of 2 7/2/201010:27:55 AM 16 Big Svb �,� � --VC( ca Pat,c�w Clam Bay Estuary �rai, Peer Review Scope of Work t3.. nw.o ,hey Suggestions for improvements to the PBSD Draft Peer Review Scope of Work to more closely reflect the discussion and member comment at the PBSD June 2, 2010 meeting: Background First paragraph - add "NRPA" to end of sentence, to read Clam Bay Estuary NRPA. Second paragraph, second sentence - remove water quality and replace with "historical ". The sentence would be stated ...review all available historical data. Second paragraph, third sentence - remove "or national estuary program ". Third paragraph - either remove everything after the second sentence, or change the third sentence as follows - remove "Although" and place a period after evaluation. Either end it there or add a fourth sentence to state - Only after the Peer Review of the PBSJ "Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis" is done, would PBSD consider participating in further Review on additional Clam Bay reports, or studies, The PBSD will not commit to any additional participation until this first Peer Review selection process for a reviewer is complete and the result of the Peer Review provided to the PBSD Board. Consideration First paragraph, second sentence - remove everything after natural estuary/ ecosystems, as it's redundant due to "water quality" already mentioned in the first sentence. The PBSD is not at this time committing to anything other than what is necessary for the Independent Peer Review of the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis report. Second paragraph - remove entire paragraph for reasons already stated. The PBSD reserves the ability to participate on further participation until after this Peer Review is done. Activities Second bullet- Add "accuracy and" to start of sentence. To state Accuracy and suffiency of the data collection efforts... Place a period after the word report. No excuses or allowances should be built into the Review for lack or failure of the report's sufficiency or accuracy. Third bullet - Add "accuracy and sufficiency of" to start of sentence. To state Accuracy and Sufficiency f Methodologies used... Fourth bullet - Add "Appropriatef" to start of sentence and add " recommendations, and summary that is attached to the report " at end of sentence. To state, 1 ON 7, 1611 819 ` AP-mPhlaW findings, conclusion, recommendations and summary that is attached to the repDrt. Evaluation of Proposals First paragraph, first sentence - add "Already" to start of sentence and "by the PBSD and CMZ /CAC'. Add "and proposals" after credentials. Second sentence - remove entirely. Third sentence - add in conjunction with the PBSD Chairman and CAC Chairman approvals of the list containing those candidates being solicited by the Purchasing Department. Solicitations for RFP to each candidate will be recorded onto a log and the log provided to the PBSD and CZM /CAC. Item 1. - second sentence - add "Florida water quality standards /guidelines" and a period after natural estuary /ecosystems. Remove remainder of sentence. Item 2. - second sentence - place period after ecosystems and remove remainder of that sentence. Leave third sentence as is. Item 3. - Third sentence - add "full PBSD Board and Full CAC Board ", after jointly evaluated by... To read The six potential candidates will be jointly evaluated by the Full PBSD Board and Full CAC Board Remove ey-eirylUn-g else after this sentence, submitted by Tom Cravens. for July 7, 2010 PBSD meeting 4 •.f OrL 161(1` B19 July y, 2010 Mr. John Sorey III, Chairman Coastal Advisory Committee City of Naples 220 Gulfshore Blvd. N Naples, FL 34102 Mr. Anthony Pires, Chairman Clam Bay Subcommittee of CAC 209 Madison Drive Naples, FL 34108 RE: Concerns about Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study Dear Sirs: The Pelican Bay Service Division Board is concerned that any assumptions. used in the proposed Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study be 1611y vetted ana only hriahied after the dam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Final Report completed in October 2009 by PIJ� &J has been properly peer reviewed in its entirety. The results of any mode( ing are only a9 valid as the reliability of its input data. For instance, one of the criticisms of the PBS &J Report to date has questioned the very limited and unreliable tidal data collected within Clam Pass. The PB*. Report concluded the data unreliable, and assumed it was similar to date collected'in the Gulf 'in much deeper water. We feel such extrapolated data should be carefully peer reviewed before it becomes the basis of the Modeling Study. i � We encourages at this entirI e process be carefutlywette at each phase and the assumptions for future phases only be.finalized after there is general agreement among experts as to the reasonableness ofthe results of each prior,phase. To do otherwise will only serve to cast doubt on the validity of the fiiial:eonclusions i Another concern of the Services Lision is the way the Clam Bay Estuary has been defined to include bodies of water extending south to Doctor's Pass. Although definitions by themselves are probably not important, we worry that somehow future projects to improve water quality in the greater. Clam Bay extending to Doctor's Pass might ultimately harm the water quality of Clam Bav as traditionally defined by the Services Division. We therefore urge that any actions initiated because of subsequent studies only be taken after careful consideration of the fragile nature of Clam Bay and the possibility of unintended consequences. Sincerely, Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Pelican Bay Services Division Board Cc: Leo Ochs Gary McAlpin a t x� 1 16111 b PJ �o0 °n�xi�i 8 €ooao�eoeeii� r� nna�enemi■ns� i �imawnsx�sn■i 0 of ooiaa000no�nno■ �u uunnwmn��u�� ono ��nN9��A�llil nmm�m�a �9990�9 @99990gIN1All m 00000 00 0�0 N�A�� III A lbrf6l9 0 1 1 1 IN�g111�IN1 o No EMINIEMMUMNIC13 �� i EI I oili � la o�o�000�u�o��000 lbrf6l9 $ ! s �! ! k� �t 16 | rlo*' B 19 $ a Hill ! :8 ■ ■ oil a■ ■■ ! 2 ! � _ __� ■Q ■■ - � ■ - &$ ®■ - ® ® ■■ k _ | ! ■ � ■ ■ - ■ - ■■ ® - ® -® k -- - - ■ - -- - -■■n ... . .. . ... . . .... ..... �! . . � $ ! HIM � � | W & ■ a� ; a� - ■q § # \ ■■ § |§ | ■ � !!| �` | | 2 ! | i� � •- � | | | ! ol |� ! ! � ■ |� �! | | �` � f !| | !� �� !| ` | � ■� | a ■� I | � | | � | | C 8 O+ N 16 111 B19 a b T g 8 O r � 3 Z V V � h F1 T 0 » � x x x x x x x x x x w x x x N x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x LL x S a .3 $ ! D 8 3 0 o E o S u � 95i Er W V s 3� S I O A O 161 Ml G O D O S r O �16111B 19 Resnick Subject: Dr. Raia's 6/15/10 email RE: Plan - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Keith Dallas [mailto:keithdallas @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 4:54 PM To: ResnickL Subject: Fwd: Plan Lisa, See that this is distributed to PBSD Board at the same time we show how everyone has set their priorities. It sounds as if Ted won't fill out the spreadsheet, so this will have to inform other Board members as to his thoughts. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: Theodore Raia <tedraia @yahoo.com> Date: June 15, 2010 9:37:50 PM EDT To: Keith Dallas <keithdallas @comcast.net> Subject: Plan Keith, As you know I am leaving early in the morning. Here are some suggestions for allocating our resources and establishing priorities. I think we all agree that safety issues should be addressed first. However when an area safety issue is addressed we should consider including all other proposed improvements to avoid needless duplication of efforts and inconvenience to the public. 1. Bicycle lanes on Pelican Bay Blvd. and Gulf Park Drive. 2. Repair Oakmont Path and allow bicycles with the following restrictions. a) No biking before 9:00am b) Cyclists must dismount for pedestrians. 3. Create a narrow "Pedestrian Only" path along Oakmont Drive. Space is not adequate for a bike path or lane. 4. Uniform cross walks limited to intersections and high pedestrian traffic areas. 5. Sidewalk pathways should be widened to 10 feet where possible and begin in those areas with high pedestrian traffic. 6. Improve the Ridgewood - Pelican Bay Blvd. intersection. 7. Improve pedestrian traffic flow at tram stations especially at the Commons. 8. Repair and widen the berm where necessary. 9. Improve the Route 41 berm beginning in areas most threatened by intrusion and include maximum noise abatement engineering. 10. Lights installation should begin as soon as feasible. If just the lights and arms, can they be installed in house with a cherry picker? If we are considering new poles we can begin at the entrances and where we are improving intersections and crossings. 11. Landscaping should be included in all area projects and then followed to completion. I strongly recommend shade trees with high first branches that will shade our walkways and not obstruct the line of sight. This is for your information to be used as you deem appropriate at the meeting. Please do not respond. See you in August. Ted 1 of 1 7/22/2010 1:31 PM by LR July 7, 20Ib Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda Item 6- Chairman's Report-c -Man ment Contract Review l6l1 B 7 To: Keith Dallas, Chairman, Pelican Bay Services Division From: W. Neil Dorrill, Division Administrator RE: Division Management First Year Summary Date: June 3, 2010 During the course of the past year the following key areas were completed as part of the managers work plan or board direction: • Negotiated an innovative strategy to jointly develop a community improvement plan with the Foundation • Negotiated a resolution of the FY 2009 transfer of $111,000 from Collier County to the Division • Completed an interior renovation of the district administrative office at no cost to the district • Completed extensive tree pruning, lake bank restoration and crosswalk projects on time and within budget • Achieved a return of surplus property revenues for the past three years • Developed a white paper and suggested approach to explore a return to independent district status • Achieved Clam Bay water quality certification of employees and protocols • Resolved an employee termination and appeal • Established initial capital improvement finance alternatives 5672 Strand Court, Suite #1 • Naples, Florida 34110 • tel. 239 - 592 -9115 • fax 239- 594 -1422 Page 1 of 2 07/02/2010 9:39 AM ................... July 7, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board. Regular Session Agenda Item 6- Chairman's Report-c- Management Contract Review 161il B19 The RFP and contract for management services requires attendance at the monthly board meeting and necessary compensated time equivalent to six hours / week. Over the course of the past several months in addition to the necessary Board and Committee meetings there are an average of four additional meetings or twenty hours of non - compensated time required to address the community's needs. As we move into the project implementation phase, I don't see the time requirements changing. For these reasons I am requesting the board consider an increase in the minimum compensation hours from six to eight hours / week. This would result in an increased monthly expense of $1,580.00. Recommendation: To increase the monthly hours and compensation for management services as outlined above. Page 2 of 2 07/02/2010 9:39 AM L O Q. 1. H R i.r N N u .O a` C .O i O m m C m u a 16U1 g19 y v w a v v v v « v w w a v a v v v v v v v v E E E u a E U _v_v E E u u E E U u E E U u _v E E U U E U E U E U E U o 0 0 p o o "> W _ N mo d Q o o z > a� 0 3 u '; 'OV ° m °a 'N 'oa�z E a m o c 0 a tv> O E T ca = E 04 °$ o E wt cm x v o - E E - °w o a v o U Yoi N Y aT+ .3 u° o H a �«o w Y «Y°•'m p o 0 0 n o a .15 o > m> E 3 o E ° E E o 'o o w o a `w a `w ° z; mo 0 =� T v «u n �i �Sa gmmmu �vuo 00 ° C r❑ as o a u v0''oLL o ou lu o >o o In c �' tim o o aaa °.—' v «"' t 'a ¢ 1O E a m m t+T' w c vw a o v as v c w vi a .E n o ` a °u as S o° o o m a £ E£ v E = u «_ a °o £ 'a c'a`w v c w:; «vv. ❑ �.a 9 Q a w oa m Y� vQ'o� ,E a l7 °ua w o N > m m s u s a L� `v —.-i E o. w v o j m wrvi o x a '> o ry m c m 0 n N a — a d o w a --o ry m= a a o G o x m w a >• " 0 o v u !^ c p vi m o LL o£ a v o w u o 03 a o 0 v co o E `m Y n o -° w= °u a p° w T n a E N N = ° nm ° a °i �oc'uo �+ E .° m m w'o v .o E° w.n n u. 3 E wm° o o E « 'm t o w? ^ « a a; m n` _ = o w n m E 8 ;: a v m o a Y, u vii N v 9v ° — �o o `° £ o 0 o. t a ry o Y o T a`o o °� G > o u o cots Z•« > w D O L« ,n O ti ;3 E >_ U O M W T c N m N r a W m w 9£ v❑ ¢° m w w 2• Em t� ,c o ti w °'�« ov Nz� LL U a` o n em o °uau� -T EE t c o N°n w H N Qc E o a nNm. u w a o ° o m \ +' m o o v v = w c �' c a c c Nf iD v Z m o o s° m N uv c z p E 3 o= n E w u _ 1O o w w 3 c °a' i m_ a n> E w w o u m a' .�+ LL N 3 u° « z E o« c m E ot1 `w '" u 3 0 v E �, ° w= E —> m °n m « u° o o o w Y ,°n' m o o Y« u_ o o£ o v a " m o c =_ w� -«a> ❑ O u Y„ °_ w v o m« o�_w❑' °mLL�� m o v £ w a v �_ u�� a �Exgo o= c -o m .. w�v 2 _ w of v E v C u v m _ ,-,mm� 1O n o no `—' E a o Eoi_ „- auoN a.c E° °' °—' m vo o .Y LL z . a r°i `w 3 - o ob c N N o ° U '' v °- N a 3 E o O10 Y c v, z o u « o a N N 'a o c o o_ .rvi c v u u '� U c v `oa. .6 a 6 w o° ry N u Z '^ J— oL .�. U_ '^ o v E 6 v m n a¢ >c w m 'm w t w t O v w y o y v '_ H on a a— w° 'E S o a m w m' o f ° o v u ._ m a o y w x° m m-o u o o . a a 3 a Z E 3 ti �n u° $ v ot{ E o v ai n o o w o a o .°c .w w a w . a Y o " w 3 c o o w u— v m w > n w o m m °� — " en «�'. « m °' '� E o£ °' " _ c w -- z o m \ c o n « — 1O w o - v a 'o o w o .N o x o a' '' a\ 'Z O o c -wo 'o z e z c .°. v ai o z v E -1O° °% m° o q vi rn m o o ° °' ma z m "' — a m m = g z o E `a a m° LL a_ n o a - Z z D J Z Z Z Z Z Z y Z o z 0 o s 0 > m to w Y d U o m o N ° m N Q a o o E> w w L N ry c 'a ❑> v c >' m £ m o w o v > v _ a o m m v u° T o v ❑ 3 y E d 'o a m w — - — o E z N o r o c ❑ o o t� - x o w — a£ w° — 3 2 Ti o N — c y o w - a> u 3 0 o N° Y c m w Z = wa o. u M¢ O U «n a Q o p 0 0 0 0 0 o O1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 6i[B1� Subject: RE: luly7 Board Meeting - - - -- Original Message---- - From: John Chandler [mailto jpcbac @comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 5:20 PM To: 'John Baron'; 'Tom Cravens; 'Keith Dallas; 'John Domenie; 'Geoffrey Scott Gibson ; 'Hunter Hansen; 'John Iaizzo; 'Mike Levy; 'Theodore Raia; 'Mary Anne Womble' Cc: ResnickL Subject: July 7 Board Meeting I received my Board Meeting packet, today. Since I will not be at the meeting, I thought that I should make a few comments now. As I probably won't complete this email until after 5 PM and the Board Meeting is tomorrow, I am not routing it thru Lisa. Nevertheless, it is a one way communication. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Update I sincerely hope that we now have the permit in hand to close Clam Pass, if necessary Peer Review I like Revision # 5 and recommend its approval CIP Priorities After all Board Members have ranked the projects, I recommend the following: - Generate a new listing, putting the projects in priority sequence with a Mean Priority of 1.0 being the top ranked project -Add a "Cumulative Cost" column, following the Probable Cost column, so that one can readily see the total cost of doing the first five projects, first ten projects or all projects -Agree upon the cutoff ranking below which projects should not be considered for funding. If the group collectively ranks a project very low, it's probably not worth doing. -Have the Budget Committee prepare an exhibit that would show how many projects can be completed with existing reserves, how many can be completed over a ten year time span with existing reserves and no tax increase and how many can be completed over a ten year time span with various tax increase assumptions. John Chandler PS -It was 93, today, in Akron. I'm starting to think of becoming a Naples Year Rounder. 1 of 1 7/7/2010 8:12 AM.by LR i� r 1819 � DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1520 ROYAL PALM SQUARE BOULEVARD, SUITE 310 FORT MYERS, FL 33919 June 30, 2010 Jacksonville Regulatory Division South Permits Branch/ Fort Myers Section SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. c/o Jeff Rogers (via email) 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Attention Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. c/o Jeff Rogers: Reference is made to a permit application, submitted on behalf of Collier County - Pelican Bay Services Division, requesting authorization from the Department of the Army (DA) to conduct ecological restoration /maintenance activities within tidal Clam Bay. The project area is located in Sections 32 -33; Township 48S, Range 25E; and Sections 4 -5, 8 -9, 32 -33; Township 49S; Range 25E, Naples, Collier County, Florida. Your application to the Corps of Engineers has been assigned application number SAJ- 1996 -02789 and is being evaluated by Linda A. Elligott at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fort Myers Regulatory Office. Please refer to this application number in all correspondence with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding this project. The following describes information required by the Corps to proceed with review of your project: 1) Please provide contact information and mailing labels for all immediately- adjacent property owners (limiting contacts for multi - family properties to a common element contact); only owners of property which directly abuts the project area are required (i.e., not owners within a given radius). 2) Please provide site - access details including land -based directions from a major intersection /town center; include land -based directions to a public boat ramp and subsequent water -based directions to the project location. An interagency site visit may be required to evaluate aquatic resources in the project area. 3) Please state if the duration of the requested permit is for the Corps standard 5 -year timeframe, or if relevant, please request a different permit duration. Note: a permit extension may be requested if received within 30 days prior to any permit expiration date. 161 1819 SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) CLAM BAY Eco- Restoration RAi 4) Please describe the existing conditions and justification to support the need for the proposed work; please describe the extent of blocked drainage and the basis and /or reference flow with respect to the stated 50% blockage threshold. 5) The submittal states that work would be performed on an "as needed basis following the same practices conducted within the Clam Bay system" during the previous 10 years; please describe the criteria and /or thresholds used to determine the need for periodic maintenance activities in the proposed work area; please identify the responsible party(s) associated with such determination(s). Please provide a reference Corp document that authorized the previously - conducted work; the Corps has identified documents in which the USFWS expressed concerns regarding the deposition of excavated materials into intertidal wetlands, specifically, mangrove habitat. 6) The submittal requests authorization to conduct "manual cleaning" of the interior channels to maintain design depths, and maintain a created network of small flushing channels ". Please define: a) the proposed methodology associated with "manual cleaning" and identify the design depths for discrete areas proposed for maintenance activities; b) the proposed disposition of materials (note: redeployment of excavated materials may constitute a discharge of fill under the Clean Water Act); additionally, in concert with the CWA 404(b) (1) guidelines, the applicant must demonstrate avoidance and minimization efforts with respect to aquatic resources; generally, discharge of fill to mangrove wetlands is not acceptable to the Corps without a compensatory mitigation plan to wholly account for the associated impacts. Please address these concerns. 7) Please provide plan sheets that are not aerial photos and depict the discrete proposed work areas; provide a summary table that defines the areal extent (acres /square -feet) of the proposed work areas. State if a target shoreline setback distance has been established. 8) Please provide the estimated volume (cubic yards) of materials to be removed, and total areal extent (acres /square feet) of the proposed work. 9) The submittal states that the work will improve the hydrodynamics of the Clam Bay system; please describe the extent of hydrodynamic improvements and /or water quality parameters that are anticipated to improve as a result of the proposed work — include data that describe past/current "impaired" conditions and quantify the anticipated improvements. 10) Please provide a narrative that addresses public interest review factors; the narrative should demonstrate that the project is clearly in the public interest (typical public interest review factors include: conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental F I t 1" 13 19 SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) CLAM BAY Eco- Restoration RAI concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water quality, safety, and consideration of property ownership). 11) The submittal states that "all cut branches and trimming debris will be removed "; please describe the planned disposition of any these materials including the methodology and ultimate disposal site (e.g., barge - loaded /trucked to licensed disposal facility). As a point of information, please be aware that any planned upland disposal site "cannot support or is incapable of supporting" the scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) or Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais coupen). 12) Please define any temporary impacts associated with the proposed work; please describe the nature and extent of all temporary impacts and state if the temporary impacts will be wholly addressed upon project completion. 13) Please define /quantify any proposed direct or secondary impacts to wetlands, mangroves and /or submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). Please provide dates /data from any bottom surveys /bathymetric mapping. 14) Please state the estimated duration of work (working days /weeks /months). 15) Please describe the range of water depths in the proposed work area(s) (tidal range from Mean Low Water to Mean High Water; not elevation datum). Define the anticipated changes in the areal extent of waters that are currently: a) 2 -15 inches in depth; and b) 0- 3 feet of depth, for consideration of Essential Fish Habitat/ESA issues. 16) Please state if the applicant is willing to comply with: Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions (NMFS 2006) and Standard Manatee Conditions for In -Water Work (FWS 2005) (see Corps web -site: http: / /www.saj.usace.army.mil/ regulatory/what/species /endangered.htm 17) Please complete /submit: a) Manatee Biological Evaluation form; and b) ESA Checklist for Section 7/ESA (attached). Please submit the requested information to Linda A. Elligott at the letterhead address within 21 days. Construction prior to U.S. Department of the Army authorization may constitute a violation of Federal laws and subject you to possible enforcement action including fines and /or removal of the structures. Receipt of permit(s) from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection may not obviate the requirement for obtaining a Department of the Army permit. C 16`1'1 B 19 SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) CLAM BAY Eco- Restoration RAI If you have any questions regarding this letter or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact Linda A. Elligott at 239 - 334 -1975 Ext. 32. Copy:applicant Sincerely, Linda A. Elligott Project Manager 4 1611 g19 MANATEE BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION October 2008 The Corps has determined that your project has the potential to affect the endangered West Indian manatee. Therefore, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the Corps is required to seek consultation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the proposed project. In order to assist us in making our final effect determination, we need you to provide us with information for items 4 -8 below: 1. Description of the action considered: The proposed project consists of 2. Description of the specific areas that may be affected by the action (scope of analysis): a. The proposed "action area "' is determined to be all or a portion of reach(es) , based on the overall project purpose which is b. The project site is located within which regional management unit of the West Indian manatee? (circle response) (1) Atlantic (east coast of Florida from St. Mary's River south to Cape Sable in Monroe County, and the lower St. Johns River from its mouth south to Rice Creek in Putnam County) (2) Upper St. Johns River (Rice Creek in Putnam County south to State Road 528 in Orange and Brevard Counties) (3) Southwest Florida (west coast of Florida from Pasco County south to Cape Sable in Monroe County) (4) Northwest Florida (west coast of Florida from Hernando County north and west to the Perdido River in Escambia County) 3. Description of any designated critical habitat that may be affected by the action. The action may affect the endangered West Indian manatee, but not affect its critical habitat. 4. Description of the manner in which the action may affect the manatee or its critical habitat: a. Habitat. Check those that would apply to within 1 -mile of the project site and a brief description. The "action area" is defined as the area to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action. Direct effects are those effects that are caused by or will result from the proposed action. Indirect effects are those effects that are later in time. BI(N 1 611 ' (1) Source of warm water input to the area? (2) Source of fresh water input to the area? (3) Does submerged or emergent aquatic vegetation or mangrove or algae occur within the footprint of the project and in the area of ingress- egress to the project site? If mangrove or emergent vegetation is present, provide a description, including type and location. For submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), a survey during the growing season is highly recommended. For SAV, excluding Johnson's seagrass, the growing season extends from June 1 to September 30. The growing season for Johnson's seagrass is from April 1 to August 31. For freshwater SAV, such as Vallisneria, the growing season varies by location. (4) Are existing depths greater than -3 feet mean low water or ordinary high water in the footprint of the project and the surrounding area? b. Proposed Facility (if existing facility, show proposed change). (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Length of shoreline associated with the proposed or existing facility Number of proposed slips (wet and dry) Number of existing (previously authorized wet and dry) slips Launching facilities: ramp , travel lift , other_ Number of parking spaces for launching facility Number of estimated launches per day c. Project Influence on Vessel Use Patterns. The project's facilities may affect vessel use patterns in the area by attracting transient traffic or causing modification of existing vessel navigation patterns. (1) Are there existing studies or reports that describe boating activities, vessel traffic, or compliance with speed zones in the action area? If yes, provide references as appropriate. (2) The proposed facility will provide the following services: (a) Permanent moorings (leased on an annual or monthly basis) for: commercial use (including fishing vessels, charter boats, rental boats, etc.). Number of slips non - commercial use (including privately -owned recreational boats). Number of slips (b) Transient moorings (leased or used on a daily basis) for: Temporary berths: Number of slips Type of use: Fuel Pump -out Other October 2008 . I , , -. 161x1' 619 (3) What is the estimated number of slips used for the following? (a) Used primarily for day trips (b) Used primarily for longer trips (c) Used primarily for dockside entertainment d. Speed Zones. It is important to consider the presence and effectiveness of on- going enforcement activities within the action area. Is the project in a State - established manatee speed zone or Federal manatee refuge? (If not, how close is the nearest speed zone? miles) 5. Relevant reports, including any environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, or biological assessment prepared. Provide any relevant reports prepared for this project. 6. Any other relevant information available on the action, the manatee and its critical habitat. Provide any other information available that would assist in our review of the effects your proposal may have on the manatee or its critical habitat, including specific actions you may propose to eliminate or minimize potential effects on the manatee and its critical habitat. 7. A Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Manatee Impact Review. Provide a copy of the review, if applicable or available. Notify the Corps if the project is exempt from State permitting, regulatory review or authorized under a Noticed General Permit. 8. Additionally, for projects within counties having a State - approved Manatee Protection Plan (MPP), a determination of project consistency with the MPP is needed. The FWC typically makes the determination and includes it in its Manatee Impact Review. The following counties have State - approved MPPs: Brevard, Broward, Citrus, Clay, Collier, Duval, Indian River, Lee, Martin, Miami -Dade, Palm Beach, St. Lucie, Sarasota and Volusia. All State - approved MPPs are available for download at: www.myfwc.com. a. If there is a FWC Manatee Impact Review available at the time of your application submission, include a copy of the review. b. If the FWC review is not available at the time of application submission, you may attempt your own consistency determination and submit it with your application. If you do this, provide the supporting information and MPP reference which you believe makes your project consistent with the MPP for your county. In some cases, the supporting information may include a county MPP consistency letter. If so, submit it as part of your determination. October 2008 ibur PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit B PCEIVED JUL 3 0 2010 RAW of Countv Halas Henning Coyle Coletta NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING THURSDAY, JULY 8, 2010 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL HOLD A PUBLIC MEETING ON THURSDAY, JULY 8, 2010 AT 10:30 AM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34108. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Audience Participation 3. Community Improvement Plan Project Priorities Discussion 4. Audience Comments 5. Adjourn 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 #: 7/6/2010 4:20:20 PM -u � � $ § G § « 2 & � A ` � � I & � & , , ! ■ & i � t � ! | | � % ■ | I I� | , | � F ■ | I W X Ix � / ( ( [) \ 2 k k k k k k k§ k§ Z B a■ iS a I G \ 7 & cr §§ — 0 . ■ t@ r# w m ■Ixlxtxlxixixlxl■I ■ ixlxlx � a � $ � ■ q a V S � ■ a I � � I & � � & � � � � ■ ■,x Ix ix ix Ix Ix Ix Ix lx Ix Ix lx 16 | � B 19 � k ( / \ ! ( r \ A E 4 A # � § k E 7 ( • FL ■ I � � | } � � ƒ k`f � / $ � E � � B | § |� 9 \ � $ } ■ ( | x xix Re- § s 2 ce i � � � 3 � � d .o. rn 0 0 N m 'D 161QFg1g ;" $ IL �m r� �O g N S a s m A IN O ro r r o Q My Na qM m ey bybp yg yp $ Yp pp S O C O CL ti O 7 ,9 a K X K K !! K K K K X ft X K K K K K K K X K K K K K v .9 Z O .n m rn CA) 0 d) N O J O N la fD 16 it"r- B 19' ch D h lb A O t1 O l! > m a m a m m � 3 0� FL d ^ �= D IL 3 ra v 3 m 3 s E ID c a ID D 3 CL g n a 8 a m 0 m dy p $ N m t e v 3 IF It EL + .. s � gg 3g� g 4 I� n w N N N V N W ftl H O tmJt � O OO M NM+ O N +/ � � + C• O O O tit pqN t bQ -M p S t O O O O if O T O C m x X 0 3 S x IN x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x W y O 'O O -0 A 0 A 0 rn rn N 0 0 N :o m v 161-1919 ol Z C O D S i u m m m � $ m _ m d!! m 4 m A a '° �. o 0 0 o m w o m 0 CD CD • o o m m m ME Br a 3 n CL I o U' m m O h$g 3 m s m 7_ C d s Ll m m a nnm m m o n a CL n n FV r f a f b °m' f y g m m Of or n Fr ° D p D 7 d a N ' O 3 o m 7 'I a .� fC m � m. O � .77 m � m S m 3 m o o r� E v o $ C n <1 Si m 00 ° rn .mr ? Q m 0 m 3 w o pp 0Om11 72. CD m m m o m m m 3 O d yl �p W N O W f0 w o H S W 01 pQW O cr Ci to O 01 O O D Ol O O O O S O O S O O O O S O S O O O O O O T O k K K K x K x is x K k K K K x x K x x K X x k x x x x X C N e w a O 7 m x o v ro 0 16 11 B19 RECEIVE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION SEP07 2010 Board of County Commissioners Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2010 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2010 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES. AGENDA Fiala The agenda includes, but is not limited: Halas 1. Roll Call Henning Coyle 2. Agenda Approval Coletta 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. July 7, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session b. July 8, 2010 Budget Subcommittee 4. Audience Participation 5. Administrator's Report a. Clam Bay Channel Maintenance Permit Update b. Capital Financing Update C. Monthly Financial Report 6. Chairman's Report a. Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PBS &J Report b. Community Improvement Plan Priorities c. Sheriff's request for Two Jet Skis d. Announcements 7. Community Issues 8. Committee Reports and /or Requests 9. Old Business a. Update on Tree Trimming for Lights b. Update on Vegetation Overgrowth 10. New Business 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence a. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet 12. Audience Comments 13. 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 -7,fi�9 Corres: Date: Item #: 7/26/2010 12:08:19 PM -hies to: 16111 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING 091VED SEP 0 l 2010 Board of County Commissioners THURSDAY, AUGUST 5, 2010 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL HOLD A PUBLIC MEETING ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 5, 2010 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34108. � Fiala --- AGENDA Halas Henning 1. Roll Call Coyle Coletta 2. Audience Participation 3. Capital Financing Update 4. Community Improvement Plan Project Priorities Discussion 5. Audience Comments 6. Adjourn 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 #: � IBA:25:32 PM 16 I $EP 0 7 2010 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 609MOfcounlycomm"Oners Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2010 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2010 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES. AGENDA ✓ The agenda includes, but is not limited: Fiala Halas 1. Roll Call Henning 2. Agenda Approval Coyle 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes COletta a. August 4, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session b. August 5, 2010 Budget Subcommittee 4. Audience Participation 5. Administrator's Report a. Clam Bay Channel Maintenance Permit Update b. Monthly Financial Report C. Final Budget Hearing on September 9th 6. Chairman's Report a. Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion b. Announcements 7. Community Issues 8. Committee Reports and /or Requests Budget Committee a. Review of CIP - PBSD Self Financing (M. Levy) 9. Old Business a. Street Lighting Obstructions Update 10. New Business 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence a. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet 12. Audience Comments 13. 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 CAALENOON17AYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT (239) 597 -1749. Date: 8/30/2010 10:43:34 AM Item #: Copies to: 1611 o B19' DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CEIVEn JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS AUG 2 3 2010 1520 ROYAL PALM SQUARE BOULEVARD, SUITE 310 FORT MYERS, FL 33919 PELICAN BAY SERVICc6 L S* 4N r r� REPLY TO ATTENTION OF August 19, 2010 Jacksonville Regulatory Division South Permits Branch - Fort Myers Section PUBLIC NOTICE Permit Application No. SAJ- 1996- 02789(IP -LAE) AUG 19 2010 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This district has received an application for a Department of the Army permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. §403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1344)as described below: APPLICANT: Collier County /Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive Naples, FL 34108 WATERWAY /LOCATION: The proposed work is located within tidal Clam Bay in Sections 32 -33, Township 48S; Range 25E and Sections 4 -5, 8 -9, 32 -33, Township 49S, Range 25E, Naples, Collier County, Florida. Directions to the site: From I -75 near Naples, take exit 107 toward Naples /Golden Gate (CR 896 /Pine Ridge Road); continue west 3.9 miles (crossing U.S. 41) onto Seagate Drive; proceed straight 0.5 miles (ends at Clam Pass Park). The site extends north for 3 miles from the northern limit of the park. By boat: use the public boat ramp at Wiggins Pass /Cocohatchee Park. From I -75 near Naples, take exit 111 (Immokalee Road); continue west 3.6 miles to U.S. 41; turn right onto U.S. 41; continue 1.5 mile to left onto Wiggins Pass Road (ends at Vanderbilt Beach Road); boat ramp immediately southwest of intersection. LATITUDE & LONGITUDE (NAD83): Northern limit: Latitude 26.247024 N; Longitude 81.818878 W Southern limit: Latitude 26.214063 N; Longitude 81.814505 W PROJECT PURPOSE: Basic: Ecological restoration activities. 16t1 1619 ' Overall: Conduct periodic ecological maintenance activities over a 10 -year timeframe for improved estuarine water quality in concert with previously- authorized ecological restoration work. PROPOSED WORK: The project is to conduct periodic ecological maintenance activities over a 10 -year timeframe within the tidal Clam Bay estuary involving: a) manual clearing of existing hand - dug channel cuts (using round -point shovels /machetes); b) creation of additional hand -dug channel cuts; c) mangrove trimming and vegetation /debris removal, along 56,660 linear feet of the estuary system. Removed natural materials to be dispersed along 'the channel cuts, mulched for reuse, or disposed of at the Pelican Bay Services landscape disposal site or a licensed local disposal facility; no mechanized equipment use; clearing is contingent upon conditions of >50% flow reduction due to blockage /obstructions. The work area consists of a network of hand -dug channel cuts of 3 various widths (Type 1: 36 -inch wide along 28,480 linear feet; Type 2: 12 -inch wide along 19,720 linear feet; Type 3: 6 -12 -inch wide along 8,460 linear feet) that improve flushing and eliminate water ponding. The proposed work would continue ecological restoration work that has been conducted as part of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan (1998) and has resulted in successful restoration of mangrove habitat. The volume of material to be removed is -20 cubic yards per year on an as- needed basis; the annual work has historically been conducted in May /June for a 1 -2 week duration. Site access is by foot from upland areas, or via small vessels; the work area is generally at or above the Mean High Water (MHW) line in waters that are characterized as having a maximum water depth of 18 inches. The applicant has agreed to comply with the Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions and Standard Manatee Conditions for In -Water Work. Avoidance and Minimization Information: The applicant has provided the following information in support of efforts to avoid and /or minimize impacts to the aquatic environment: a) the proposed work is for continued ecological restoration in concert with the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan and is need - based for areas where >50% flow reduction is observed due to blockage /obstructions (e.g., sediment; vegetative debris, roots); b) the proposed work is limited to areas with a maximum water depth of 18 inches and will involve only manual work (round point shovels /machetes); no mechanized equipment use is proposed; c) the applicant has agreed to comply with the standard construction precautions; d) the applicant has proposed the minimum amount of work that would make the project feasible. K 16 I'1 819 Compensatory Mitigation: The applicant has provided the following explanation why compensatory mitigation should not be required: The proposed work is for ecological restoration and continues previously- authorized work that historically resulted in mangrove recovery and improved water quality. The project would result in continued ecological enhancement of the Clam Bay estuary, thus, no compensatory mitigation is required. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The tidal Clam Bay system is subject to diurnal tides with flow through Clam Pass to the Gulf of Mexico. The existing network of channel cuts was developed as part of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan (1998) and has been subject to similar ecological restoration /maintenance activities for over 10 years, resulting in mangrove recovery and improved water quality in the Clam Bay estuary. The current conditions consist of a network of hand -dug channel cuts; maintenance activities would focus on areas where water flow is >50o reduced due to blockage /obstructions that could be manually cleared. The work is generally at or above the MEW line (maximum water depth is 18 inches. The bottom substrate is mud /muck and sand. ENDANGERED SPECIES: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has determined the project poses "no effect" to the manatee or its designated critical habitat (2008 Manatee Key Sequential Effect Determination: A = no effect; the maximum water depth in the project area is 18 inches and work is generally at or above the MEW line; the waters are thus not accessible to manatees. The project similarly poses "no effect" for swimming sea turtles. The project is not located within a designated critical habitat area for the smalltooth sawfish, and although water depths of 0- 18 inches can provide habitat for the species, the proposed work would not adversely affect any primary constituent elements for the species and would provide a net ecological benefit(including mangrove restoration); the work thus poses "no effect" to the smalltooth sawfish. The effect determinations are based on information provided by the applicant, and the applicant's willingness to comply with the Standard Manatee Conditions for In -Water Work and Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions. The Corps has programmatic concurrence for the manatee (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service purview) and for swimming sea turtles and the smalltooth sawfish (National Marine Fisheries Service purview); no further consultation is required. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH): This notice initiates consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service on EFH as required by the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 1996. The proposed work is for continued ecological restoration 3 16iti I 819 activities in the Clam Bay estuary. The project would not result in increased watercraft usage and is anticipated to enhance ecological habitat in the project area. The bottom substrate in the project area is comprised of mud /muck and sand that may be utilized by various life stages of shrimp, spiny lobster, stone crab, snappers /groupers, and migratory /pelagic fishes. The proposed work area is at or above the MHW line where the maximum water depth is 18 inches. Our initial determination is that the proposed action would not have a substantial adverse impact on EFH or Federally- managed fisheries in the waters of the Clam Pass estuary or near -shore Gulf of Mexico. Our final determination relative to project impacts and the need for mitigation measures is subject to review by the National Marine Fisheries Service. NOTE: This public notice is being issued based on information furnished by the applicant. This information has not been verified or evaluated to ensure compliance with laws and regulation governing the regulatory program. The jurisdictional line has not been verified by Corps personnel. AUTHORIZATION FROM OTHER AGENCIES: Water quality certification may be required from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and /or one of the Water Management Districts. Comments regarding the application should be submitted in writing to the District Engineer at the above address within 21 days from the date of this notice. If you have any questions concerning this application, you may contact Linda A. Elligott at the letterhead address, via e -mail at Linda .A.Elligott @usace.army.mil, by fax at 239 - 334 -0797, or by telephone at 239 - 334 -1975, Ext. 32. The decision whether to issue or deny this permit application will be based on the information received from this public notice and the evaluation of the probable impact to the associated wetlands. This is based on an analysis of the applicant's avoidance and minimization efforts for the project, as well as the proposed compensatory mitigation. 2 16ICV B19 IMPACT ON NATURAL RESOURCES: Preliminary review of this application indicates an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Marine Fisheries Services, and other Federal, State, and local agencies, environmental groups, and concerned citizens generally yields pertinent environmental information that is instrumental in determining the impact the proposed action will have on the natural resources of the area. IMPACT ON CULTURAL RESOURCES: Review of the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places indicates that no registered properties or properties listed as eligible for inclusion therein are located at the site of the proposed work. Unknown archaeological, scientific, pre - historical, or historical data may be lost or destroyed by the work to be accomplished. EVALUATION: The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefits, which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal, must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable deterrents. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including cumulative impacts thereof; among these are conservation, economics, esthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historical properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food, and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and in general, the needs and welfare of the people. Evaluation of the impact of the activity on the public interest will also include application of the guidelines promulgated by the Administrator, EPA, under authority of Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act or of the criteria established under authority of Section 102(a) of the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. A permit will be granted unless its issuance is found to be contrary to the public interest. The US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State, and local agencies and officials, Indian Tribes, and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps to determine whether to issue, modify, condition, or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this determination, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of anEnvironmental Assessment and /or an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT CONSISTENCY: In Florida, the State approval constitutes compliance with the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan. In Puerto Rico, a Coastal Zone Management Consistency Concurrence is required from the Puerto Rico Planning Board. In the Virgin Islands, the Department of Planning and Natural Resources permit constitutes compliance Coastal Zone Management Plan. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING: Any person may request a public hearing. The request must be submitted in writing to the District Engineer within the designated comment period of the notice and must state the specific reasons for requesting the public hearing. z V >r �i O 6 w N W Y C:IDo_ciimrnb and SslHnp m— nUlnkus.hlmy down nbVlePublbh- 218woto_CHANNEI MAMTENANC U V w am 6 118 19 �W o ' T 8 Z N di zd mQ QW F H N Q J 2 � N N Q Q a W >�__ � e N 0 O O F F 0 m � �ma..0 lu W ® z aa Flu z m U I!I W K R IL a Z O J Q Z 0 N N O Z a� N Ov ZU J wo W 0 IL IX O w 0 O LL N 2 W M co a -j It CR O QW 10� eNe�� Or-A v.� neNn zz z CD F- QZ W Op a ZQ IOU c�U Div d 0 WI L go Z cc," Q� w W Q F W .. S 22 m rnwO FAQ ~Z ��J QZ�O QQ xi o -.� d o z v v v f~AN2LL7 v v v v � •.. od W So �A E-1 SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) 3 Clam Bay Eco- restoration August 19, 2010 Figure 1!9 fA )S '� F' r i s ti v / �✓ 159' {...�' e !Yp n ��d f r\ �i C� 1a l \ / �y F a` A.s 4ert yy rc at � OX ; ..� r t� �rt 1 y fk Ey IPN s � ar �� • f Lrg v X i1.soii .r 1 a' �a )S '� F' r i s ti v / �✓ 159' {...�' e !Yp n ��d f r\ �i C� 1a l \ / �y F a` A.s 4ert yy rc at .0 • IPN s � ar f Lrg v X i1.soii .r )S '� F' r i s ti v / �✓ 159' {...�' e !Yp n ��d f r\ �i C� 1a l \ / �y F a` LL O ZR� p Z`�JLL�LL � M1 n wla°n +co 0,4 11 N � w =000ZF- ~ W � m w d y jr r- �a Q Z N � WZ N w — ww Z! mo° Ed : - opjwwQU 0000 V Y 0� z W J W z z = n U r W a° 9 im W p Z ovi rn 2 in IX W W O w LL co fV r 0*.4 W U) IL C W z H 5 U V— documsntslAcPubllsh _Z18012010_CNAN NEL_MAINTENANCE.dw g J W Z WU LL WO M W ON rn Q' re W in F=- GW Z O Q xQ W W Z w Z to 2 WU In O F W N O mU) a' 0 LU w J Z O co Z sMo W N W co Q N N W (Qzp 3Z h N N L N m z ° < z g a N Z Z z i N Z 0 0 0 F N O z m 12 d z O �s 0 U) W J W z z J Q z JW z ti °D C13 U w z >o �9w a i `x o23 Q 0. W v 00 � m $ h i2 " r \-, SAJ- 1996 -02789 ('iP -LAE) Clam Bay Eco- restoration August 19, 2010 Figure 3/9 1611 +R19` N 0 O V W ul N W LL N < N 0 N ° z3 0 z = C v� 4_] z J J pp LL W F N ON M<n 10�t� F- v_ U O W fA 0 o ascgw m N 'z a z N O C7 OW W D F' z W m Q '0 o 2 i wSoU w ° w zza! LOU o. W z � �voa� a 0 ' ° WwW � W O W 04 MLU o 0V J 00 N 2000000 0 0Z ttooW LLI w � 0 2 LU F- aw2 OW z M IX 0 D m F- QQ, o'bo 9 Z z C ° F- a a w X - 0 w } w a I W � z — �W \ z z z Q a z 04 N � U Q w __ ao C14 Z } ° IL w W } z I— Z N (V _ U �Pi P, 2 �w _ � z � �•� ms's 9 rn on v � � d W E W o x 00 0 tq ` LLJ co LL °0 H W y W , m SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) \ w W Clam Bay Eco- restoration � August 19, 2010 w Figure 419 C:10ocumants and So ingslvinconlilnkus.talmy documantslAcPublist _218012010_CHANNEL LlAW7ENANCE.dwy 161 'B19" z ; y w W y N y LL < ry O w w Q o ° i LU Z U— IL IL W F N N i F IL i0002F O ° 7 �ILILILpiw of H z d p W F Q w Zto a z O O Q i co) tp Z W m 0 II r.�N �p � 0 ° Zzwcjo w 8 Z p p o 0 LLJ D� }NUFFU�U=jjtnZ yO a m W poF Ma:zEa � W OW o , ° N 0 ^ 0^ nn H y I�Y V.V V V Y Cw zz Z M W o F-0x W1=-• y m V G W Z WWI a im U' W z O Z (� ° H- a- x NW�/ U Li , ` L J a a W W� z W z zz Z Z O Z Z Z / V Z _ aN Un M Q CM a� J w W H ~ Z N N T U on"" M b ' g $ _ vi y O :2 a c� U w _ — a8 v °o --z W � W V 00 I— O to to W W SAJ -1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) F Clam Bay Eco- restoration w August 19, 2010 Figure 5/9 `f' C.IDocumants and S*HIngo%vinwnt`dnkus.tslmy dowmeMfUcPublbh_2lW2070 CHANNEL_MAINTENANCE.dwg LL O °>g Z o L i O U J 1 LL i ti � W � H �00co W 11 (Yr -aD.7Q O �xx r =oo'OZF- o MaaavW (D 0 W a IL r0 o zw m ZwvLLyZ z o W WIa F WZtApm H� "L:R oww Wv - g. O O CO) fU) LL W yc OQ W Z G= Z r d3 C: \Oownwnb and SslHnpslvI— ntslnku WnW dow nbUlcPubOsh 218 012 0 7 0 CHANNEL_MAINTENANCEdwg J W z jL U) LL WO mw Oy N w W ra = wF- G W z O a 'a a J 20 W zaz y S W V W LLU OW U) W LU cF W I R. B 19 N; gym= LLI N W N N ui W mq Z F N N N N a y Asa_ d N Z Z 3 0 0 r � F N h O z F z p U o o H J W Z Z 2 V C9 Z_ 2 N J LL co W U) iv O IL N" U - a M w i �a a2 „ N X Q E� Gt7 OHO va g M S SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) Clam Bay Eco- restoration August 19, 2010 J Figure 6/9 ibri e�y N 3 2 Qn S w w W U) a n tL N 0 lii W W F-au. O1 � ��zpp N J � � � W ccj 0 XG2 1- OZH p pp,,U OW QmQQ W W a Z o� q UJ 0 z� l 1 . W F N ui��.tY ...ZZd6OZ W Z z d. 2 12 ji �g'y Q 0 O 1u1� toZZ ypj :3 i 'W�' = C1 W a> Q>� mW m'S LU to mW o o i1 N FdF.F -, 0�0,U wa 00 z'0Q00;� 0_ WW Cy �w 0 m= w I-- LIz O W =F 09 W Z ISO Z W °— _ Z O > V 0 6 Z_ 0 0- a = O W 20 J O \ Q O Z N \� _ `� �, it N Uj N m a 57< W a° J 0 CL ci Pig N T z d-9 ,' o �w y� W W a° pa x W z OOOCCC oo � N� ^s w 0 �- to LL. 00 O v� SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) W W Clam Bay Eco- restoration c M August 19, 2010 w Figure 7/9 C- Wowments and S*WnOSAYlnwntslnkULteMV dow"nMAcPubllah_218012010 CHANNEL MAINTENANCEAvg U) z 0 z'l O Z N U) wc, 11.. O Z?s O w 0 rn Z J J � U W 3 N W v W = 10, ❑ �WIXIX8 w m o L. 1 Z (7 p W m o W_Ill�s�VU W ow: ¢ z id 7 Z OF F O Z �U (j) .2 acWwrZCCA--0 r�'aoU :o: c � 4; a unucw"m ana s mnenrmwmzlnK oimy 161�i`g19 U) O 0 y W W N yr N ui W mqz 2 uj N W LLI • poll LU .- 00 04 M ul IL G � • Z a O 0 t II QWW SW per' z QT a. II m 0 z H U) w w z w U a� w z Q� U x 0 a a CAD —"M. and SaWnq.WIn- ntslnkua.t -UM N U Q FZ Z 0 W W W z fn a W a F W F- m UJ OZ 4f V S C7 F w O Ill O a U� G7 w U Q N w z� U b IW* SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) Clam Bay Eco- restoration August 19, 2010 Figure 9/9 ,Its M O O P ° S mm W N W [Z JU J F N N 4 0 z ° 7 naa_ d � Z 0 F O o H w V Z Q Z w Z_ Q N w V Q w O Ja V bQ N N O w con W z 0 M � 8 1 TURRELL, HALL& ASSOCIATES INC. ..., r 5 MARINE & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 3584 Exchange Avenue, Suite B • Naples, Florida 34104 -3732 • (239) 643 -0166 • Fax (239) 643 -6632 August 30, 2010 Arielle Poulos Department of Environmental Protection 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, FL 33901 RE: Clam Bay # 11- 0128463 -005 RAI Response 1. Thank you for your request to conduct Environmental Restoration and Enhancement and the submittal of $250.00 for the application fee. Your project does not appear to meet the definition of "Environmental Restoration and Enhancement" in Rule 62- 4.020(6), F.A.C. (see below) and will therefore be processed as an individual permit. Please submit to the Department the required non- refundable application processing fee of $5,610.00 (of which $250.00 has already been paid) pursuant to Chapter 62-4 F.A.C. Please include the notation "Application Fee for File No. 11- 0128463- 005." We would like to discuss this more with Department staff as, based on our reading of 62- 4.020(6), F.A.C. this project appears to meet that definition exactly. The project is proposed by a governmental entity, the project is not proposed as mitigation for any permit, and the objective of the activity is to enhance water resources by maintaining the hydrology and water circulation restoration and enhancement work done under the previous permit. The sole purpose of the work was and is to re- establish the native mangrove vegetation and restore it to a more desirable natural condition. Based on this project description, and the requirements laid out in 624.020(6), F.A.C., we still believe that this project qualifies for the $250 application fee. We would be interested in hearing the Departments specific reasons as to why it would not. 2. Please provide a copy of the original permit, #0128463- 001 -JC and the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan, as mentioned in your application. Please see enclosed as requested, a copy of the 1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan. The Plan includes a copy of the DEP permit which authorized the restoration and enhancement activities that have been done to date. 3. Please submit a detailed maintenance plan that will keep those plants that are determined to be exotic and nuisance species by the Department out of the proposed restoration area and how the area is to be maintained in perpetuity. This plan should include items such as: • If inspections are planned and to what frequency; • How the exotic and nuisance vegetation is to be removed; • How turbidity is to be controlled during the exotic and nuisance vegetation removal process; • Where the extracted vegetation is to be deposited 1611 B.19 Site inspections are made during the annual monitoring activities that occur throughout the entire site. The applicant also has a high resolution aerial photograph flown every year. The combination of aerial review with ground truthing serves to identify any areas with exotic infestation. These areas are then reported to the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD aka applicant) for treatment. All removal activities are carried out by hand. To date, the main exotic species that has been managed is Brazilian pepper. The exotic plants are cut above the water line and the stumps treated with Department approved herbicides. By cutting the plants above the water line, there is no contamination of the local waters when the stumps are treated. Smaller plants, when able, are pulled up entirely. Plants along the perimeter of the native area are removed but in cases where the exotics are well into the preserve and the removal would cause damage to the existing or regenerating mangroves, the cut debris is left in place to decay naturally. Where possible, the cut debris is placed so that it is not in contact with water and so the possibility of rooting of the debris is minimized. The exotic removal activities generally take place in areas above the MHW line. Accessing the areas on foot and cutting debris by hand, coupled with the fact that the exotic removal is above the MHW line means that turbidity is not an issue. 4. Your application states that your proposed mitigation is wetland enhancement, in the form of exotic removal. Please submit an exotic removal plan to the Department, which details the methods that are to be employed. This plan will include items such as: • How the exotics are to be removed, i.e. cut to stump and treated with a Department approved herbicide, the entire tree removed including the root system, etc.; • Where the exotic vegetation is to be deposited; • If any vehicles or other heavy machinery is to be employed in the removal process; • A detailed maintenance and monitoring plan that will ensure that exotic and nuisance species will be kept out of the mitigation area In reviewing the application submittal, we are unable to find any reference to mitigation. The proposed project is maintenance of wetland enhancements that have been conducted in the past under previous Department permits. Since the proposed activities result in an overall benefit to the mangrove forest and simple maintenance of existing navigation and boardwalk pathways, no mitigation is being proposed. Exotic removal activities are conducted throughout the mangrove forest as part of the ongoing stewardship activities undertaken by the PBSD but this exotic removal is being done, and will continue to be done for the benefit of the forest, not as mitigation for the proposed channel maintenance. The exotic removal is conducted as described in the response to comment #3 above. All work is done by hand on an as needed basis. The areas are accessed on foot either from the adjacent uplands or from the water with the use of a small boat. 5. Please provide a detailed description of the construction methods to be used for the proposed project. It is noted that the application states that all maintenance activities will be done manually; however it also states that mangrove trimming will take place and the limbs will be removed from the project area. Please clarify on the methods for the restoration of the channels, mangrove trimming, material removal, etc. Please note, construction activities should be restricted to the project area. This description shall include items such as: • Equip used; • Areas used during construction activities; • If needed, a plan view drawing indicating the construction and stockpiling areas; • A statement indicating whether the construction and staging areas will be temporary or permanent in nature; 1617`ieiQ • If the areas to be used for construction are to be temporary, please indicate how long the area is to be impacted, at what time of the year it is to be impacted and details on how this area will be restored; • If rutting of the soils, due to heavy equipment, is expected in the construction areas, please provide a detailed description of the restoration activities; All work is done by hand. The maintenance of the flushing channels that have been dug throughout the mangrove forest is done by accessing the blocked areas on foot, and using a shovel to remove the blockage. The few shovels of material are broadcast out to the sides. This maintenance protocol has been underway for the past ten years without adverse affects and without any indication that the broadcast material simply fills back in the channel. It has been observed that the maintenance necessity is usually due to vegetative debris causing the blockage and once removed, the channel remains open unless more vegetation falls into it. It is not usually caused by fill from the adjacent area flowing into the channel. Mangrove trimming will be done on an as needed basis from the existing boardwalks or from a small boat only in areas that need to be trimmed in order to maintain access through the existing canoe trail or boardwalks. All trimming is done by hand tools (hand saw, chain saw, or clippers) and trimmed debris is hauled off either in the boat (from the navigation channel), or in a golf cart and trailer (from the boardwalk). The debris is hauled to the landscape disposal area in the PBSD service area. 6. An inspection of the project site may be conducted to determine and evaluate the resources expected to be impacted. Project modifications may be required following the inspection. For the purposes of a site inspection by Department personal, please stake the property corners with the unit and tract number and stake all areas of impact for the proposed project. Once this has been completed, please contact the Department at 239 - 332 -6975, ext 184, so a site visit can be scheduled. We would be happy to escort the Department reviewer(s) on a site visit at their convenience. The project area does not need to be staked as it is well defined by the existing surrounding development, the existing waterways, and the Gulf of Mexico. 7. Pursuant to 373.414(1), F.S., please provide reasonable assurance that this activity is not contrary to the public interest. In determining whether an activity is not contrary to the public interest, the department shall consider and balance the following criteria: 1. Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; The proposed activity is the maintenance of an existing managed system to keep a mangrove system healthy and functional as well as provide public enjoyment of the area. The project was originally undertaken in 1998 to restore a dying mangrove forest. The proposed activity benefits the property of the residents in Pelican Bay by maintaining the mangrove forest; it protects the safety of residents and visitors by maintaining the existing navigation and pedestrian pathways through the area, and it benefits fish and wildlife resources by maintaining the improvements made to the system under previous permits. 2. Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; 3 161E1" B19 The proposed project has been a benefit and will continue to be a benefit to fish and wildlife resources. The channels excavated throughout the mangrove forest provide the flushing actions necessary to maintain a healthy mangrove forest community. ' The regeneration of the forest since the work was undertaken shows the benefits which have been realized. The proposed activities are simply the maintenance needed to keep the system functioning and able to continue providing the benefits to fish and wildlife resources currently realized. 3. Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; The past 10 years of experience with this project indicate that no adverse affects to navigation or causes of shoaling are associated with the proposed activities. 4. Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; We believe that the flushing and movement of water throughout the system provided by the project is of great benefit to the nursery and habitat functions of the mangrove forest provided to fish. S. Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; The overall project purpose of maintaining the flushing capacity of the forest is a permanent activity but the maintenance of the channels itself is temporary and only as needed. 6. Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of 267.061, F. S.; and No archaeological or cultural resources are affected by the proposed project. 7. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The proposed project is maintenance of channels constructed to improve flushing and help in the restoration of a mangrove die -off. The system has been recovering as a result of the flushing channels and is currently in relatively good shape, recovering from the die -off, as well as from hurricane damage suffered in subsequent years. Our belief is that without the ability to maintain the channels, the system could become compromised and could be adversely affected if water levels are allowed to stack up in the forest as happened prior to the die -off. Since the proposed management activities are in the public interest, ensuring that the overall quality and viability of the Clam Bay forest system is maintained, no mitigation or other public interest improvements are proposed. 8. Please provide information on who will be conducting any mangrove trimming and who will be supervising the trimming. Pelican Bay Services Division has in the past and is currently the organization that conducts all mangrove trimming within the Clam Bay system. !I 16 Ill' '619 9. It appears that the project area may have multiple conservation easements located within it. Please provide information/ maps /and documentation pertaining to the proposed area, showing where the conservation easements exist around the trimminglalteration location. Please note, trimming/alteration may be affected by the information recorded within the conservation easements. The entire project area is part of a Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) established by Collier County Ordinance in 1995. The only trimming or alteration of mangroves proposed is to maintain the existing navigational pathways and boardwalk accesses. Occasionally, a mangrove tree falls over into the waterway and blocks navigation access. The PBSD would like the maintain the ability to remove these downed trees or branches in order to maintain the navigation access through the canoe trail without having to get a separate authorization each time. Likewise, trees occasionally lean over or grow down into the boardwalk and berm pathways and the PBSD would like to be able to quickly remove these branches to maintain safe access along the paths. The only other mangrove alterations proposed in the project area are the result of maintaining the stormwater system that runs along the berm and into the upland development adjacent to the project area. This activity, as has been acknowledged by the Department in the past will remain a maintenance activity associated with the stormwater system and under the review of the SFWMD. As in the past, the PBSD would notify the Department prior to any trimming being done. Upon your review of the above if you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me at the above letterhead phone number. Regards, / Tim Hall Senior Biologist Turrell, Hall & Associates 5 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Accrued Wages Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet- August 27, 2010 Operating Fund 109 (Unaudited) Assets 1,420,584.20 $ 1,420,584.20 $ 1,420,584.20 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ (9,578.97) (27,692.27) (1,715,639.09) 332,326.13 $ (37,271.24) (1,383,312.96) $ (1,420,584.20) Page 1 of 1 11'j-! Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - August 27, 2010 Operating Fund 109 (Unaudited) Operating Revenues: Carryforward Special Assessment - Water Management Administration Special Assessment- Right of Way Beautification . Charges for Services Surplus Property Sales Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Water Management Administration Payroll Expense White Goods IT Direct Client Support 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 (J /E to correct) 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 Fees Other Contractural Services Temporary Labor Telephone Postage Trash and Garbage Electrical Components Maintenance Motor Pool Rental Charge Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Tree Triming Clothing and Uniforms 1611 ,B 19` Budget Actual Variance (10,000.00) for equipment reserves $ 742,500.00 $ 715,828.61 $ (26,671.39) 1,922,500.00 1,853,533.41 (68,966.59) 1,500.00 - (1,500.00) 13,043.00 13,043.00 40,500.00 12,649.50 (27,850.50) 2,697,000.00 2,595,054.52 (111,945.48) $ 44,500.00 $ 36,918.19 $ 7,581.81 18,300.00 - $ 18,300.00 4,100.00 4,100.00 - 117,600.00 117,600.00 - 16,600.00 16,600.00 - 21,300.00 14,808.24 6,491.76 4,100.00 2,542.60 1,557.40 3,000.00 58.60 2,941.40 13,400.00 13,616.73 (216.73) 1,300.00 975.00 325.00 2,300.00 827.50 1,472.50 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 4,261.57 2,157.82 2,103.75 1,100.00 526.30 573.70 255,861.57 210,730.98 45,130.59 148,600.00 127,764.86 20,835.14 12,000.00 6,686.25 5,313.75 14,000.00 2,468.00 11,532.00 8,500.00 1,975.00 6,525.00 21,100.00 13,384.00 7,716.00 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 42,400.00 35,170.00 7,230.00 500.00 397.88 102.12 - 272.45 (272.45) 8,300.00 6,739.25 1,560.75 - 1,370.47 (1,370.47) - 47.60 (47.60) 2,600.00 1,950.00 650.00 3,600.00 2,700.00 900.00 4,500.00 2,876.47 1,623.53 2,000.00 4,237.38 (2,237.38) 27,600.00 24,300.00 3,300.00 1,900.00 4,582.57 (2,682.57) Page 1 of 3 161F1 "g19 Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 896.44 (396.44) Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 68,923.62 29,476.38 Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 1,091.00 409.00 Other Operating Supplies 2,500.00 3,887.51 (1,387.51) Total Water Management Field Operations Operating 403,000.00 311,720.75 91,279.25 Right of Way Beautification 211,800.00 168,830.92 42,969.08 Payroll Expense 45,600.00 37,790.98 7,809.02 White Goods 16,900.00 - 16,900.00 IT Direct Client Support 4,200.00 4,200.00 - Other Contractural Services 28,000.00 19,227.84 8,772.16 Telephone 3,900.00 2,404.08 1,495.92 Postage 3,000.00 35.98 2,964.02 Rent Buildings and Equipment 13,800.00 13,963.22 (163.22) Insurance - General 500.00 375.00 125.00 Storage Rental - 583.50 (583.50) Printing, Binding and Copying 2,600.00 577.50 2,022.50 Clerk's Recording 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 Advertising 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 Office Supplies General 4,774.26 2,555.42 2,218.84 Training and Education 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating 128,774.26 81,713.52 47,060.74 Right of Way Beautification - Field Payroll Expense 806,700.00 651,144.31 155,555.69 White Goods 3,300.00 - 3,300.00 Flood Control 130,400.00 122,040.14 8,359.86 Pest Control 6,500.00 - 6,500.00 Other Contractural Services 29,500.00 31,537.94 (2,037.94) Temporary Labor 211,800.00 168,830.92 42,969.08 Travel Professional Development 642.87 (642.87) Telephone 3,800.00 2,815.77 984.23 Trash and Garbage 24,900.00 14,331.80 10,568.20 Water and Sewer - - - Electricity 3,400.00 2,213.97 1,186.03 Rent Equipment 8,500.00 3,516.78 4,983.22 Motor Pool Rental Charge 800.00 216.00 584.00 Insurance - General 12,200.00 9,150.00 3,050.00 Insurance - Auto 9,300.00 6,975.00 2,325.00 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 29,400.00 24,887.41 4,512.59 Fuel and Lubricants 47,100.00 32,125.02 14,974.98 Licenses and Permits 800.00 339.78 460.22 Tree Triming 25,000.00 31,095.00 (6,095.00) Clothing and Uniforms 12,000.00 3,504.19 8,495.81 Personal Safety Equipment 3,000.00 1,341.71 1,658.29 Fertilizer and Herbicides 58,500.00 61,151.79 (2,651.79) Landscape Maintenance 60,200.00 54,889.20 5,310.80 Sprinkler Maintenance 30,000.00 17,666.73 12,333.27 Painting Supplies 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 Traffic Signs 3,000.00 530.00 2,470.00 Minor Operating Equipment 3,000.00 4,588.10 (1,588.10) Other Operating Supplies 11,500.00 19,478.59 (7,978.59) Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating 1,536,100.00 1,265,013.02 271,086.98 Total Operating Expenditures 2,323,735.83 1,869,178.27 454,557.56 Page 2 of 3 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) 166E B19 1,000.00 430.45 569.55 1,000.00 430.45 569.55 13,200.00 6,432.00 6,768.00 13,200.00 6,432.00 6,768.00 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 18,217.34 5,782.66 63,600.00 52,160.34 11,439.66 78,800.00 59,022.79 19,777.21 2,402,535.83 11928,201.06 474,334.77 294,464.17 666,853.46 372,389.29 (82,500.00) (51,393.89) 31,106.11 (75,200.00) (41,089.82) 34,110.18 (140,000.00) - 140,000.00 (297,700.00) (92,483.71) 205,216.29 (3,235.83) 574,369.75 577,605.58 Page 3 of 3 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - August 27, 2010 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 457,014.45 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 457,014.45 $ 457,014.45 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ (522.50) $ (903.50) (392,850.20) (62,738.25) Page 1 of 1 (1,426.00) (455,588.45) $ (457,014.45) 16I[`619 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - August 27, 2010 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 Expenditur Net Profit /(Loss) 16 fr'B 19 $ 350,900.00 16,010.00 102,400.00 98,528.50 102,400.00 35,000.00 237,485.00 70,128.33 3,438.99 555,700.00 136,967.49 P. 83,100.00 $ 83,500.00 500.00 2,400.00 500.00 170,000.00 Variance $ (350,900.00) (3,871.50) (67,400.00) 3,438.99 24,418.75 $ 18,720.00 44.08 470.50 43,653.33 (418,732.51) 58,681.25 64,780.00 (44.08) 29.50 2,400.00 500.00 126,346.67 42,485.00 26,475.00 16,010.00 25,000.00 - 25,000.00 67,485.00 26,475.00 41,010.00 237,485.00 70,128.33 167,356.67 318,215.00 66,839.16 (251,375.84) (3,200.00) (1,970.84) 1,229.16 (2,100.00) (1,535.04) 564.96 (5,400.00) - 5,400.00 (10,700.00) (3,505.88) 7,194.12 307,515.00 63,333.28 (244,181.72) Page 1 of 1 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - August 27, 2010 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 2,003,935.98 Interest Receivable - Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received Inv. Received Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Liabilities and Fund Balance Page 1 of 1 452.36 (1,030,261.41) (974,126.93) 1611 'g19 2,003,935.98 $ 2,003,935.98 452.36 (2,004,388.34) $ (2,003,935.98) Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - August 27, 2010 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) FY 2010 Budget Actual Operating Revenues: Carry Forward $ 2,029,500.00 Special Assessment 55,900.00 Interest 19,800.00 Total Operating Revenues 2,105,200.00 Operating Expenditures: Irrigation & Landscaping Engineering Fees $ 175,000.00 $ Interdept. Payment - Other Contractural Services 1,924,500.00 Licenses and Permits - Total Irrigation & Landscaping Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): 161F1''819 Variance 53,891.26 (2,008.74) 16,488.29 (3,311.71) 70,379.55 (5,320.45) 25,437.80 $ 155,624.43 237.85 149,562.20 1,768,875.57 Mq-7 oc% 2,099,500.00 181,300.08 1,918,199.92 Transfer from Fund 109 $ (902,000.00) $ (902,000.00) $ - Transfer from Fund 778 (186,400.00) (186,400.00) $ - Tax Collector Fees (1,700.00) (1,078.00) 622.00 Property Appraiser Fees (1,100.00) (837.97) 262.03 Revenue Reserve (2,900.00) - 2,900.00 Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expenditures, n (1,094,100.00) (1,090,315.97) 3,784.03 Net Profit /(Loss) (1,088,400.00) (1,201,236.50) (112,836.50) Page 1 of 1 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - August 27, 2010 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenue (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Assets $ 228,068.70 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ (20.09) (3,700.96) (314,193.43) 89,845.78 Page 1 of 1 $ 228,068.70 $ 228,068.70 $ (3,721.05) (224,347.65) $ (228,068.70) 1611 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - August 27, 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 and Storage Insurance - General Storage Rental Reimburse Prior Year Revenue Office Supplies General Other Office and Operating Supplies Total Street Lighting Administration Operating Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense White Goods Travel Professional Development Telephone Electricity Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Other Equipment Repairs Personal Safety Equipment Budget Actual 16Ir1,*--iB19 Variance (300.00) $ 285,700.00 $ 275,688.44 $ (10,011.56) 4,600.00 1,728.61 (2,871.39) 290,000.00 277,417.05 (12,882.95) $ 33,900.00 $ 28,927.42 $ 4,972.58 19,800.00 - $ 19,800.00 4,100.00 4,100.00 - 6,700.00 6,700.00 - 20,800.00 14,808.25 5,991.75 4,100.00 1,746.47 2,353.53 2,000.00 11.18 1,988.82 13,400.00 13,164.61 235.39 400.00 300.00 100.00 - 583.50 (583.50) 200.00 40.87 200.00 500.00 1,761.57 (1,261.57) 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 106,700.00 72,143.87 34,597.00 54,000.00 46,888.01 7,111.99 14,500.00 - 14,500.00 2,752.81 (2,752.81) 2,300.00 234.98 2,065.02 44,200.00 28,691.49 15,508.51 800.00 600.00 200.00 1,100.00 825.00 275.00 1,300.00 2,599.92 (1,299.92) 900.00 559.88 340.12 200.00 - 200.00 500.00 - 500.00 Page 1 of 2 Electrical Contractors Light Bulb Ballast Total Street Lighting Field Operations Operatin 1611 B19 7,300.00. 1,212.57 6,087.43 12,400.00 8,567.87 3,832.13 139,500.00 92,932.53 46,567.47 Total Operating Expenditures 246,200.00 165,076.40 81,164.47 Capital Expenditures: 105,465.16 Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): Street Lighting Administration Tax Collector Fees (8,800.00) (5,529.45) Other Machinery and Equipment 1,000.00 443.49 556.51 (15,000.00) - Total Street Lighting Administration Capital 1,000.00 443.49 556.51 Street Lighting Field Operations General Improvements 13,200.00 6,432.00 6,768.00 Total Street Lighting Field Operations Capital 13,200.00 6,432.00 6,768.00 Total Capital Expenditures 14,200.00 6,875.49 7,324.51 Total All Expenditures 260,400.00 171,951.89 Operating Profit /(Loss) 29,600.00 105,465.16 Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): Tax Collector Fees (8,800.00) (5,529.45) Property Appraiser Fees (5,800.00) (1,139.90) Revenue Reserve (15,000.00) - Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expenditur (29,600.00) (6,669.35) 88,488.98 75,865.16 3,270.55 4,660.10 15,000.00 22,930.65 Net Profit /(Loss) - 98,795.81 98,795.81 Page 2 of 2 September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 1 of 52 16 1 `919 From: Keith Dallas To: Resnick/- Cc: Neil D rrill Subject: Fwd: Discussion of Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Date: Friday, August 27, 2010 2:07:40 PM Lisa, Lisa, did you receive this? I wanted this information included under my section for Wednesday's PBSD meeting. Please note the attachments I wanted included. Please confirm you received this. I'm having some problems sending stuff while on the road. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: Keith Dallas < keithdallas@comcast. net> Date: August 25, 2010 11:56:05 AM EDT To: Resnickl- <Lisa Resnick@col I iergov. net> Cc: Neil Dorrill <neil @dmgfl.com> Subject: Discussion of Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Lisa, Please add the above item to the agenda of our September 1st PBSD meeting under the Chairman's Report section, and pass along these comments to PBSD members as part of the meeting package. Also include CAC's most recent proposed language as background. Neil and I will first update members on our conversations with the County. Then I would like to have PBSD consider what we should do next. Thinking about was has happened to date, I thought maybe we should split the discussion into pieces to speed the process. Specifically, assuming members agree, I suggest we consider the following: 1. Do we still want to have an agreement with the County regarding selecting someone to do an independent review of the PBS&I Report? 2. If we do, is there some earlier version of the Peer Review Scope of Work that would still be acceptable to us ? (Lisa, look back through our minutes and include copies of all drafts of the Scope of Work that we have officially agreed to send to CZM - I am still traveling and don't have my files available.) 3. If there is such a draft(s), we may want to look at our recent discussions of the bidding process to see if we want to incorporate some of that language into the document ?(That bidding process language is not included in the earlier documents, which may make members nervous.) 4. If we agree, that document could then be forwarded to the County for their approval or disapproval. If members have a better approach, please have it defined so we can discuss specifics at the meeting. I would hope that we could either decide to stop this process, or make a decision on some language on the Scope of Work that is acceptable to the PBSD, and can be forwarded to the County, Keith Page 1 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. e13 1 -ih ki6 September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of WorktTc Page 2 of 52 g d em No. 10F 161- 1 BDJ,�eryber 15, 2009 age 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 -4502 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. Dordil and our offer to provide an alternative to resolve a dispute over the release of the above referenced report. As you are aware there is concern within Pelican Bay that the recent Clam Bay water quality analysis may have inaccurate conclusions that would cast the system or historical data in a negative manner. I understand that you share our concern that all work performed in Clam Bay be both accurate and focused on improving this critical environmental resource. For this reason our board voted at its meeting on December 2 "6 to authorize 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 future phased peer review be split between the Pelican Bay Services and Public Service divisions in your agency. • We would prefer 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. Ci 0 1 r �1 R t C 91 se H G T September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 3 of 52 Agenda Item No. 1 OF o X 16 , jfajV'f133 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 15, 2003. I am willing to assist you and would be happy to answer any questions that you may have on this effort to resolve our concerns. Sincerely, l Mary Anne Womble, Chairwoman Pelican Bay Services Division Cc: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Mr. Neil Dorcill file September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussi Page 4 of 52 10 1 ��1g�d tem No_ 10F December 15, 2009 Page 133 of 133 : Neil Dorrill [mailto;neii @dmgfl.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 3;44 PM To: McAlpinGary; michaelsheffielod @colliergov.net Subject: RE: Pelican Bay Letter Gary: I have reviewed the Executive Summary and Mrs Womble's letter of December 3'd 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 @colliergov.net] Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 10:03 AM To: ochs_I; brock_m; Neil Dorrill; ramsey_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. From: brock_m Sent: 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 Page 4 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. 6rcel"..D. B19 . September 1, 2010 Pelican I i��fon Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 5 of 52 Agenda Item No. 10F December 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 OBJECTIVE: 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 June 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. Page 5 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Di vi ' n Ua_rd Re Jar Se ion 6a - Status of Peer Review Sco of ork i t Page 6 of 52 A It No. 101= ii cember 15, 2009 Page 2 of 133 • Sediment and Biological Characterization - $20,844: 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 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. Funding required to complete the Master Plan for Clam Bay are: Fund 111 - Unincorporated Collier County Court Recording and Documentation Costs Water Quality Monitoring in Clam Bay System Chemicals and YSI probes lab Fees (9 locations for 12 months) Consulting and Analysis Support Public Outreach and Communication Peer Review Sediment toxicology Installation of Beach and Inlet Safety signs and Permitting Permitting and Installation of Navigational Markers in Clam Bay Estuary Wildlife and Habitat Preliminary Analysis Fund 111 Subtotal System Modeling (Fund 195 - TDC) Optimization of tidal flushing, water quality and mixing $3,400 $1,000 $18,000 $4,000 $1,000 $5,000 $30,000 $5,000 $15,000 $20,000 $102,400 $86,017 Page 6 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 7 of 52 �'� a Item No. 10F B Igi1mber 15, 2009 b f 1 Page 3of133 Optimize of pass /cross 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 PBS &J 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. 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. PREPARED BY: J. Gary McAlpin, CZM Director Page 7 of 52 08130/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion ResnickL D R of r) - Subject: for 4/19 Peer Review Workshop, 12/15/09 BCC Meeting info 16 Attachments: 121509_czm_executive summary.pdf, 121509_ bcc minutes_re_scope_motion.pdf L Irr*B 1 i I From: Resnick Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 10:08 AM To: Neil Dorrill (neil @dmgfl.com); Geoffrey S. Gibson Uosiegeoff @aol.com); Hunter H. Hansen (Hunter. Hansen @hilton.com); Johan (John) Domenie (hobodory@comcast.net); John Baron Obaron @watersideshops.com); John Iaizzo (iaizzo @comcast.net); John P. Chandler Opcbac @comcast.net); Keith J. Dallas (keithdallas @comcast.net); Mary Anne Womble (Teedupl @aol.com); Michael Levy (mikelevy @embargmail.com); Theodore Raia (tedraia @yahoo.com); Tom Cravens (nfn16799(�naples.net); Donna Cox (Donna.Cox @hilton.com); Jim Powers Cim @dmgfl.com); lukasz_k; McCaughtryMary; ResnickL Subject: 12/15/09 BCC Meeting info for 4/19 Peer Review Workshop 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 E . end the ro...,, of the Clam Bay A dyiseFy f'.,m,, i#ee to june 30 2 L11 L1 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 staffs 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 1 isaresnick(a�colliergov.net �:HpeI icaiibgyservicesdivision .neticaiibgyservicesdivision.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 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." Page 8 of 52 08130/2010 at 12:05 p.m. 1 of 1 4/16/2010 2:09 PM by LR September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 9 of 52 y 161:111 B19 Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work March 15, 2010 March 19, 2010 – Rev. 1 Background 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 Glam Bay System Data Collection Analysis Report recently completed by PBS &J 6e 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 D46-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 managemenf Ian 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 .engineertn`g, marine biology, modeling, geology and coastal manag-arnent to r ahli 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 qualify tandards, 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 rigfit fbr: 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. 1 Page 9 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Segn 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Di 1611 ussign Page 10 of 52 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 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 �s that only expenses, no fees or certainly reduced fees might be possible In researching this topic two other individuals Were highly- recommendedy 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 Fonda environment, Unfortunately, Dr. Estevez has elected not to participate with us because of'the politicaldynarics involved. Considerable concern was.expressed at the last Clam Bay subcommittee meeting held on 3/17/2010 by the Pelican Bay community iftlese programs and individuals have had an acquaintarice and working' relationship' with Dr. Dave Tomasko and /or PBS &J. The Pelican Bay commuhit -VJs concerned that as a result of any relationship, objectively would be compromised. I can onliOndicate that since these are all nationally recognizedprograms and Dr. Tomaskol is a nationally recognized expert, both are known to each other. Since vile 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. 2 Page 10 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 11 of 52 16 111r,819 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. 3 Page 11 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussio Page 12 of 52 1 B19 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive • Suite 605 • Naples, Florida 34108 • (239) 597 -1749 • Fax (23 )9) 597 -4502 May 6, 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, � \ 1 &J� Keith Dallas, Chairman r Pelican Bay Services Division Board ' 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. 5/6/20101:46:54 DM September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 13 of 52 161 Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work Proposed by PBSD 5/5/10 Background 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 Services 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 /ecosystems. 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 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 activities should be performed during peer review. They are review, analyze, and critique of: 1. Services Division historical data (See Appendix A) 2. Sufficiency of the data collection used in developing the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report performed by PBS &J 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. Page 13 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discuss on Page 14 of 52� B 19 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 &1 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. Page 14 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Affiliation 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Dis1s6 i�n , Page 15 of 52 Loren D. Coen g 19 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/Fiiles /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 system, $70,000; Icoen0sccf org 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; rdavisOcas.usf.edu University of South Florida, Geology Department; Coastal Research Laboratory Ernie Estevez Sr. Scientist and Director, Ph.D., Marine Ecology, University of South httl2://www.gulfbase.org/12erson Center for Coastal Ecology, Mote Marine Laboratory Florida; marine and estuarine ecology; freshwater inflows; coastal resource /view.1hn ?uid =ernie management.; ecology; population biology; ecological indicators; a tevez mote.or James A. Gore Dean, College of Natural and Ph.D., Zoology, University of Montana; http : / /www.ut.edu /detaii.aspx ?bio =1 Health Sciences and Professor of Biology, University of research interests: ecology of rivers and streams, conservation of water resources; &id =12034 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; igore@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 rhuehes@bio.fsu.edu; marine ecology and estuarine systems y/hughes.aspx University Elizabeth A. Irlandi Associate Professor of Ph.D., University of North Carolina, Chapel https : / /services.fit.edu/profiles /profit Oceanography Department of Marine and Environmental Hill; marine benthic ecologist, ecology of seagrasses and other benthic macrophytes, e.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(tfit.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.shtm] 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; mluther0marine.usf.edu Page 15 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 16 of 52 1611 X19 Name Affiliation Comments Orrin Pilkey James B. Duke Professor Ph.D. Geology, Florida State University; http:/ /fds.duke.edu /dbiNicholas Emeritus of Geology, Earth & Ocean Sciences Professor Expertise: shorelines and coastal geology onilkey @duke.edu /eos /faculty/onilkey Emeritus of Earth Sciences, httl2s•//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 U.S. Geological Survey Ph.D., Environmental Sciences (Ecology and http_/ /sofia.usgs.gov /people /smit Climatology), University of Virginia; Expertise: ecology; environmental Science; h.html ecological indicators; restoration; http: / /www.gulfbase.org /person geographic information Science; modeling; tom j smith @uses.gov /view.phn ?uid= tsmithiii Kathleen Sullivan Sealey Associate Professor, Ph.D., Marine Biology, Scripps Institution of http:/ /www.bio.miami.edu /Fac /S Department of Biology, University of Miami Oceanography, University of California, San Diego; ksealey @bio.miami.edu ealey.htmi httl2://henge.bio.miami.edu/coas alecology John D. Wang Professor, Rosenstiel School of Ph.D., Civil Engineering, specialty in coastal http:/ /www.rsmas.miami.edu /di Marine &Atmospheric Science, Division of Applied Marine Physics, University of Miami 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; 'wan ma .miami.ed Ping Wang Associate Professor, Ph.D., Geology, University of South Florida; httl2:/ /crl.usfedu/people.htm Department of Geology, coastal geology and sedimentary processes; htty : / /crl.usf.edu/wangyitae.htm University of South Florida coastal engineering and management; wan cas.usfedu Harold R. Wanless Professor and Chair, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University; httl2:/ /www.as.miami.edu /geolog Department of Geological Sciences, University of Miami sedimentology, coastal and environmental geology; hwanless @miami.edu y/faculty#hwanless Robert H. Weisberg Distinguished University Ph.D., University of Rhode Island; research http_/ /www.marine.usf.edu /facul Professor, Physical Oceanography, College of emphasizes in -situ measurements, analyses, and models of West Florida Shelf circulation tv /robert- weisberg.shtml Marine Science; and the interactions between the shelf and htt.j2:/hocMeb.marine.usfedu /W Director, Ocean Circulation Group; Co- director, Coastal the estuaries; weisberg @marine.usf.edu eisbergSite /BWlndex.html Ocean Modeling and Prediction System, University of South Florida Page 16 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 17 of 52 16, 1919" 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 and Disc of recommended background material Page 17 of 52 08/3012010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 18 of 52 161�1�'B19 1 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 goals 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 II. Part 7.6. pp 279 -296 and Doctor's Pass. Section lI, Part 7.7. pp 297 -308. 4 Crawford, Robert. 1997. Assessment of the Impact of the Proposed Flow Control Valves of the Seagate Drive Culverts. 5 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. 6 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. 7 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. 8 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. 9 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. 10 Hatcher, James. 1994, 1996, and 1997. Collier County Environmental Services Division Publication Number NR- SP- 94 -01. 11 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. 12 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 13 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. 14 Lugo. A.E. 1976. Role and Productivity of Black Mangroves. Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council Report. pp 74 -103. (Available as pdf. General 20080826083149.pdf) Page 18 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 19 of 52 M:. 161 B 19 15 Post Buckley Schuh Jernigan PBS &J. 2007 (Draft Final), 2008 (Final). Clam Bay Seagrass Assessment. Prepared for Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department. 40 pp.' 16 Post Buckley Schuh Jernigan PBS &J. November 17, 2009. Response to Criticisms of Post, Buckley, Schuh, Jernigan October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Final Report. 17 Roellig, D., November 2009. Comments on Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan (PBS &J) October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Final Report. 18 Tackney &Associates, Inc. 1996. Preliminary Hydrographic Assessment -Clam Bay Systems.' 19 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. 20 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. 21 Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. 1995. Clam Pass Inlet Management Plan Interim Report No. 1. 22 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.' 23 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.' 24 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. 25 Wilson Miller Barton &Peek, Inc. April 1996. Pelican Bay Investigation, Pelican Bay Water Management System — Stormwater Detention Volume and Water Budget Analysis 26 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. Page 19 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 20 of 52 16 1 t BjC 6/1/2010 Peer Review direction as approved by the Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Coastal Advisory Committee at the May 20, 2010 meeting. The Coastal Advisory Committee is committed to find a workable solution with PBSD on Peer review for the Clam Bay Estuary. Listed below are key discussion points from this meeting. 1. PBSD refocused the scope of the effort to address only the PBS &J report dealing primarily with data review, water quality program recommendations and data collection issues. This is acceptable to the Clam Bay Subcommittee but should not be the primary focus of the peer review effort. The circulation modeling and development of a master management plan for Clam Bay are the critical activities that should be addressed. The Coastal Advisory Committee invites PBSD and the entire community to become involved in this more critical activity when it begins. 2. Since the scope of this peer review is focused now on Water quality and related issues, the key criteria in selecting a review resource should be someone with intimate knowledge of state water quality standards, the Impaired Water Rule, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL's) and the impacts /standards for Dissolved Oxygen and Chlorophyll. This is the basis for all the conclusions and recommendations associated with Water Quality and the Water Sampling program. This criterion was omitted from the PBSD selection criteria and should be used as the primary qualifications in selecting a reviewer. 3. FDEP is the agency that is tasked with the Water quality management of the estuaries within the state. FDEP could evaluate this report and determine if the conclusions are valid and if the report was prepared in a professional manner. The Clam Bay Subcommittee of the CAC was not supportive of this option at this time. 4. Resources that the CAC believe are qualified to perform the Peer Review were left off of the list proposed by PBSD. In speaking with Keith Dallas, PBSD Chairman, it was not their intention to sensor or eliminate any CAC recommendations at this time. The key focus of our peer review should be the circulation modeling, analysis and recommendations moving forward. Care should be taken that the peer review of the water quality study performed by PBS &J does not sap the strength out of this future effort. With that in mind, The Clam Bay subcommittee of the CAC approved: 1. The list of consultants proposed by PBS &J. CZM staff will add to them our list (previously identified and others) and forward them to purchasing for proposal solicitation. 2. The modified PBSD scope of work as identified in the "Explanation of Changes from the 3/19/10 Draft" document. Added back in will be the stipulation that water quality expertise will be the primary qualification in selecting a peer review professional for this portion of work. Peer review for other portions of work will be evaluated and selected separately. Page 20 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 21 of 52 111�.** B 19 3. Keith Dallas and Gary McAlpin to work together to develop the request for proposal document with purchasing. Once the consultant list is prepared it will be the only individuals that can submit proposals. 4. Keith Dallas and Gary McAlpin collaborate on a proposal evaluation document that can be brought back and reviewed by our respective boards by next meeting. 5. Agree to target to have this activity complete and a proposal on the street by 6/15. Page 21 of 52 08130/2010 at 12:05 p.m. i %-ii. ift1h. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 22 of 52 16 11' B 19 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive • Suite 605 • Naples, Florida 34108 • (239) 597 -1749 • Fax (239) 597 -4502 June 8, 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 email regarding the Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work, dated June 2, 2010. The Pelican Bay Service Division appreciates the work the Coastal Advisory Committee has done to date and is also committed to find a workable solution with CAC on the Peer Review of the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Final Report completed October 2009 by PBS &J and its associated historical data. This response is formatted to respond to the five specific items delineated in your June 2 response: 1. We agree that PBSD and CZM will each individually recommend lists of potential consultants to be forwarded to Purchasing for proposal solicitation. It is agreed that only individuals on such consultant list produced by Purchasing can submit proposals. 2. The PBSD suggests that to properly review the final PBS &J report and associated historical data in its entirety; the reviewer must have broader knowledge than just water quality expertise. Therefore, we recommend our earlier language of "water quality, marine biology, modeling /hydrology, geology, and natural estuary /ecosystems" remain in the Scope of Work. 3. In an effort to maximize the coordination between the PBSD and CAC and to move this project along as quickly as is feasible, we propose that a joint committee of the chairmen of the PBSD and Clam Bay Subcommittee of the CAC along with our respective administrators (Messrs Pires, McAlpin, Dallas and Dorrill) work together with Purchasing to develop the request for proposal document. 4. We also recommend that the 4 individuals above collaborate on a proposal evaluation method that can be brought back and reviewed by our respective boards at the earliest possible date. 5. Unfortunately because the response from CZM was only received the day before our last PBSD meeting (and due to County email problems, first seen by some Board members at the actual meeting), the June 15th deadline is not feasible. However, we do wish to see this process wrapped up as quickly as is practical. I wish to thank CAC and you for your efforts. We look forward to successfully completing this project and discussing future projects. Sincerely, Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Pelican Bay Services Division Board C U �/. . L• C H N L 1' Page 22 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regu r Sejsion 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Dis si . Page 23 of 52 I 1: i 919 Resnick/ From: Keith Dallas [keithdaIlas @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, July 26, 20102'02 PM To: ResnickL 5ubject: Peer Review Scope of Work Attachments: Peer Review Draft ES- 7.docx; ATT00001 -htm; Peer Review Draft ES- 7- 2.docs; ATT0 0 0 0 2 -1-4m; concerns on water circulation modeling 2.doc; ATT00003..htm; concerns on water circulation modeling 2- 2.doc; ATT00004..htm Lisa, would you see that my comments below be passed on to the PBSD Board as part of the Agenda package for the August 4th Regular PBSD meeting, along with the revised draft language. Attached are revised drafts of the "Peer Review Scope of Work" and the letter "Concerns about Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study ". One set are the finished drafts, while the other set shows additions in red, and deletions with a line drawn through them. I have tried to take as many of the comments into account as is physically possible, rewording some of the language where necessary for readability. Besides the revised drafts, please include as background the following comments received from the following individuals: * John Chandler 7/12/10 * Tom Cravens 7/7/10 * John Domenie 7/15/10 * Mike Levy 7/16/10 * Ted Raia 7/19/10 I thank everyone for their input. The objective at the August 4th meeting is to agree on final language for the two drafts. As can be seen from the July 8th email from Gary McAlpin to the Clam Bay Subcommittee etc. (Lisa, please attach to this package), our inability to finalize these documents on the 4th would probably mean the death of this peer review attempt. I feel that would be very unfortunate. Although our work on Peer Review could be moot if the Foundation can strike a general agreement on Clam Bay with the County, that agreement at best will not be finalized for some time, and is not guaranteed to happen. In the absence of such an agreement, I feel it is prudent to finalize the Peer Review Scope of Work to keep pressure on the County. A final point. Please pay attention specifically to Mike Levy's comments. He has taken the approach that we have not agreed to be involved in future studies and therefore should not be discussing the water circulation model in our scope of work or in my proposed letter. I did not take those comments into account in my draft, feeling that our discussions at our June 2nd meeting (see page 8384) indicated that the PBSD was willing to discuss future studies in a very vague, limited manner. The language of the first draft of my letter is taken primarily from those minutes. I would like the Board to decide if they agree with my approach and then finalize our language on August 4th. Keith I of I 7/27/2010 8:46 AM by LR Page 23 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 24 of 52 1611 9 Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work March 15, 2010 March 19, 2010 —Rev. 1 June 25, 2010 — Rev. 2 June 30, 2010 — Rev. 3 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 4 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 5 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 6 July 23, 2010 — Rev. 7 Background During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved an independent peer review of the October 2009 PBS &J report and the work required to complete the development of a comprehensive management plan for the Clam Bay Estuary. Specifically, the BCC authorized that a recognized expert perform an independent review of the Final October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report completed by PBS &J. To complete this analysis, a thorough review of all available historical data including the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) historical water quality data is required. This expert, jointly selected by PBSD and Coastal Zone Management (CZM), will be from an academic, university, or research institute and not directly involved with any consulting firm. Additionally, this individual will be independent without any material relationship with the PBSD, the Pelican Bay Foundation or Collier County government. The review of the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis Report is proposed to be conducted at the beginning of the development of the water flushing /circulation model. It is also recommended that the cost of this effort be split between the PBSD and CZM. The current financial commitment from the PBSD is only for the PBS &J report evaluation. After the peer review of the Final PBS &J report is completed and distributed, the PBSD will consider participating in the peer review of other studies or reports that includes the Clam Bay NRPA. Consideration A thorough review of the PBS &J report should involve a number of critical sciences. Among others, these disciplines would involve water quality, marine biology, modeling /hydrology, geology, and natural estuary/ecosystems. The water quality expertise that is required for the PBS &J report is not just the review and analysis to state standards but also expertise with respect to the proactive development of our specific water quality standards for the Clam Bay estuary system and the establishment of our own multi -year estuary management program that will address critical water quality issues as opposed to having FDEP establish solutions. While other skill sets are important, the vast majority of the reviewer expertise needs to be focused in these discipline areas. Page 24 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 25 of 52 1611 1 Activities to be performed Activities to be performed during Peer Review Review 1. Review, analysis and critique of the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report dated October 2009 performed by PBS &J to include: • Analysis of all available historical data including the Services Division's historical data /information. • Accuracy and sufficiency of the data collection efforts undertaken in the development of the PBS &J Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report given the fragile nature of the Clam Bay NRPA, the contracting constraints and ability to augment data with future collection. • Accuracy of methodologies used in the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report performed by PBS &J. • Appropriateness of findings, conclusions, recommendations, and summary of the report. Evaluation of Proposals Already pre- identified candidates by the PBSD and CMZ/CAC will be solicited to submit credentials and proposals to perform a Peer Review of the PBS &J Data Collection and Analysis report. The Collier County purchasing department would confirm with the PBSD Chairman and the CAC Chairman the proposed list of candidates to be approached and then initiate this solicitation. Solicitations for RFP to each candidate will be recorded onto a log and the log provided to PBSD and CZM /CAC. All proposals will be jointly evaluated and must be acceptable to both Collier County Coastal Zone Management /CAC and the Pelican Bay Services Division. The Evaluation and Selection process is outlined as follows: 1. Candidates will submit their qualifications, experiences, related work history and schedule for consideration. This summary should not be more that 4 pages in total length and focus on water quality, marine biology, hydrology, geology, and natural estuary/ecosystems. 2. Selection will be based on a total composite score. This score will be based on knowledge, experience, work history and background in similar ecosystems as per the criteria listed in item one above. Schedule will also be considered in this evaluation. 3. The Pelican Bay Services Division will perform their own independent evaluation and submit their three top candidates for discussion. Coastal Zone Management/CAC will do the same. The six potential candidates will be jointly evaluated by a committee consisting of The Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Vice Chair of the Pelican Bay Services Division, and the director /Manager of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Chairman of the CAC, the Vice Chair of the CAC and the Director of the CZM. This group will select and recommend the final candidate. 4. The final selection must be approved by both the Pelican Bay Services Division board and the CZM /CAC. The final candidate will also be approved by the BCC. Page 25 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 26 of 52 1blit: B19 Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work March 15, 2010 March 19, 2010 - Rev. 1 June 25, 2010 - Rev. 2 June 30, 2010 - Rev. 3 July 1, 2010 - Rev. 4 July 1, 2010 - Rev. 5 July 1, 2010 - Rev. 6 July 23. 2010 -Rev 7 Background During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved an independent peer review of the October 2009 PBS&J report and the work required to complete the development of a comprehensive management plan for the Clam Bay Estuary. Specifically, the BCC authorized that a recognized expert perform an independent review of the Final October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report FeGent4y completed by PBS &J. To complete this analysis, a thorough review of all available historical water quality data including the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) historical water quality data is required. This expert, jointly selected by PBSD and Coastal Zone Management (CZM), will be from an academic, university, or research institute 9F natigRal estuapy pFegFaFR and not directly involved with any consulting firm. Additionally, this individual will be independent without any material relationship with the PBSD, the Pelican Bay Foundation or Collier County government. The review of the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis Report is proposed to be conducted at the beginning of eaFly `*R the development of the water flushing /circulation model. It is also recommended that the cost of this effort be split between the PBSD and CZM. Although The current financial commitment from the PBSD is only for the PBS &J report evaluation. the intent with .+°, lepm + f the + plaR(s) that Fn be °, + °,1 After the peer review of rr� y-�cv �vpmcrn�°rcrrc��ra"a9 °cni °i c-pio i � °fir the Final PBS &J report is completed and distributed, the PBSD will consider-participating in the peer review of other studies or reports that includes the Clam Bay NRPA. Consideration A thorough review of the PBS &J report should involve a number of critical sciences. Among others, these disciplines would involve water quality, marine biology, modeling /hydrology, geology, and natural estuary/ecosystems. 4 °' With F ++° the pFGpvsed water y The water quality expertise that is required for the PBSBJ report here is not just the review and analysis to state standards but also expertise with respect to the proactive development of our specific water quality standards for the Clam Bay estuary system and the establishment of our own multi -year estuary management program that will address critical water quality issues as opposed to having FDEP establish solutions. While other skill sets are important, the vast majority of the reviewer expertise needs to be focused in these discipline areas. Page 26 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Da 97 of F9 1611 " g19 Activities to be performed during this +a►tiat Peer Review 1. Review, analysis and critique of the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report dated October 2009 performed by PBSD to include: • Analysis of all available historical data including the Services Division's historical data /information. Accuracy and sufficiency of the data collection efforts undertaken in the development of the PBSD Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report given the fragile nature of the Clam Bay NRPA, the contracting constraints and ability to augment data with future collection. ^ d the 2ppliGability of ,sing • Accuracy of methodologies used in the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report performed by PBSD. • Appropriateness of findings, aad conclusions, recommendations, and summary of the report. Evaluation of Proposals Already pre- identified candidates by the PBSD and CMZ/CAC will be solicited to submit credentials and proposals to perform a Peer Review of the PBSD Data Collection and Analysis report. Only pFe identified Gandidates will be allowed te submit prepesals for evaluation. The Collier County purchasing department would confirm with the PBSD Chairman and the CAC Chairman the proposed list of candidates to be approached and then initiate this solicitation. Solicitations for RFP to each candidate will be recorded onto a log and the log provided to PBSD and CZM /CAC. All proposals will be jointly evaluated and must be acceptable to both Collier County Coastal Zone Management /CAC and the Pelican Bay Services Division. The Evaluation and Selection process is outlined as follows: 1. Candidates will submit their qualifications, experiences, related work history and schedule for consideration. This summary should not be more that 4 pages in total length and focus on water quality, marine biology, hydrology, geology, and natural estuary /ecosystems. aad theFeugh knowledge ef wateF quality and FIeFida water quality standaFelsiguideliRes al9Rg w ith del'n mnAelinn data and nnllention methedalnnie 2. Selection will be based on a total composite score. This score will be based on knowledge, experience, work history and background in similar ecosystems as per the criteria listed in item one above. Schedule will also be considered in this evaluation. 3. The Pelican Bay Services Division will perform their own independent evaluation and submit their three top candidates for discussion. Coastal Zone Management/CAC will do the same. The six potential candidates will be jointly evaluated by a committee consisting of The Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Vice Chair of the Pelican Bay Services Division, and the director /Manager of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Chairman of the CAC, the Vice Chair of the CAC and the Director of the CZM. This group will select and recommend the final candidate. 4. The final selection must be approved byaegeptable` both the Pelican Bay Services Division board and the CZM /CAC. The final candidate will also be approved by the BCC. Page 27 of 52 08130/2010 at 12:05 p.m. 16 ItB19 September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 28 of 52 Resnick) Subject: RE: Peer Review (of PBS &1 Report) Scope of Work - - - -- Original Message---- - From: John Chandler [mailtoJpcbac @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 3:07 PM To: ResnickL Subject: RE: Peer Review (of PBS &J Report) Scope of Work Lisa, 1 am comfortable with both the draft for the Peer Review Scope of Work and the draft for the Concerns about the Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study. John Chandler ResnickL Subject: RE: friendly reminder... - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Theodore Raia [mai Ito: tedraia @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:30 PM To: ResnickL Subject: Re: friendly reminder... Lisa, I thought I sent my priority list. I don't have any comments about the peer review except that I am more concerned about the actions of Steve Feldhaus and the foundation committee. I will be at the August meeting. Ted Page 28 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 2 of T%%J 1 B 1 �v `t j ca Pet�cr.w, J!� ,stry k s� �3 tVl= Clam Bay Estuary 3r 1%0-0 �M1 Peer Review Scope of Work Suggestions for improvements to the PBSD Draft Peer Review Scope of Work to more closely reflect the discussion and member comment at the PBSD June 2, 2010 meeting: Background First paragraph - add "NRPA" to end of sentence, to read Clam Bay Estuary NRPA. Second paragraph, second sentence - remove water quality and replace with "historical ". The sentence would be stated ...review all available historical data. Second paragraph, third sentence - remove "or national estuary program ". Third paragraph - either remove everything after the second sentence, or change the third sentence as follows - remove "Although" and place a period after evaluation. Either end it there or add a fourth sentence to state - Only after the Peer Review of the PBSJ "Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis" is done, would PBSD consider participating in further Review on additional Clam Bay reports, or studies, The PBSD will not commit to any additional participation until this first Peer Review selection process for a reviewer is complete and the result of the Peer Review provided to the PBSD Board. Consideration First paragraph, second sentence - remove everything after natural estuary/ ecosystems, as it's redundant due to "water quality" already mentioned in the first sentence. The PBSD is not at this time committing to anything other than what is necessary for the Independent Peer Review of the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis report. Second paragraph - remove entire paragraph for reasons already stated. The PBSD reserves the ability to participate on further participation until after this Peer Review is done. Activities Second bullet- Add "accuracy and" to start of sentence. To state Accuracy and suffiencv of the data collection efforts... Place a period after the word report. No excuses or allowances should be built into the Review for lack or failure of the report's sufficiency or accuracy. Third bullet - Add "accuracy and sufficiency of to start of sentence. To state Accuracy. and Sufficiency of Methodologies used... Fourth bullet - Add "Appropriatef" to start of sentence and add " recommendations, and summary that is attached to the report " at end of sentence. To state, ICA z Page 29 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 30 of 52 161"B19 Apl� rp iate findings, conclusion, recommendations and summary that is attached to the report. Evaluation of Proposals First paragraph, first sentence - add "Already" to start of sentence and "by the PBSD and CMZ /CAC ". Add "and proposals" after credentials. Second sentence - remove entirely. Third sentence - add in conjunction with the PBSD Chairman and CAC Chairman approvals of the list containing those candidates being solicited by the Purchasing Department. Solicitations for RFP to each candidate will be recorded onto a log and the log provided to the PBSa and CZM /CAC. Item 1. - second sentence - add "Florida water quality standards /guidelines" and a period after natural estuary /ecosystems. Remove remainder of sentence. Item 2. - second sentence - place period after ecosystems and remove remainder of that sentence. Leave third sentence as is. Item 3. - Third sentence - add "full PBSD Board and Full CAC Board ", after jointly evaluated by... To read The six potential candidates will be jointly evaluated by the Full PBSD Board and Full CAC Board Remove everything else after this sentence. submitted by Tom Cravens for July7. 2010 PBSD meeting 2 •of, 2, Page 30 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. From: Johan Domenic <hobodory @comcast.net> To: Gwen Rasiwala Sent: Thu Jul 15 17:44:13 2010 Subject: A favor 1611 S19 September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 31 of 52 I am having trouble communicating by e -mail with Lisa Resnick at the PBSD> Could you forward the following to her from me, please? Thanks John Suggested changes as requested: "BACKGROUND Proposed wording for the first paragraph: "During their regular December meeting, the Board of Collier County Commissioners approved an independent peer review of the work performed (dated...........) by PBS &J. This peer review must be completed and approved by the PBSD and the Coastal Zone Management prior to the development of a comprehensive management plan of the Clam Bay NRPA. Such a future comprehensive management plan of the NRPA excludes the bays to the south: Venetian Bay & Moorings Bay." Question: why should the PBSD contribute financially to any studies being made in the city's bays ? ? ? ?? Specifically the BCC authorized the following Resolution: « ............................................ ............................... To complete this peer review analysis, a thorough review of all available historical data, including the PBSD historical data is required. (Since I do not have the exact wording of the BCC Resolution 1 do not know if we have to include the following): The selected expert, jointly selected by the PBSD and CZM will be from an academic, university or research institute, and not directly involved with any consulting entity. This expert will be independent without any relationship with the PBSD, the Pelican Bay Foundation or Collier County Govemment. In the second paragraph eliminate "early in the development" and substitute "before ". I realize that some of the work for the development of the water flushing /circulation model has started, but I do not understand how this work can proceed if the available data is incorrect or not available. In the next to the last line of the second paragraph insert "peer" after the word "Program ". Do we need the last paragraph on page One? At the top of page two eliminate the word "initial ". Shouldn't the first line read: "1.- Review, analyze and critique...." Not "analysis ". Should we also include any data developed by Turret] Hall and Humiston & Moore ?? Should "Clam Bay System" be defined — again ? ?? 7/19/2010 9:07 AM by LR Page 31 of 52 08130/2010 at 12:05 p.m. .lust some thoughts John September 1 2010 Pelican an Ba rvices DivisBoard R lalession 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 32 of 52 Resnickt From: Mike levy [mikelevy @embargmail.com) Sent: Friday, July 16, 10105:10 PM To: Resnickt Subject: Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work Attachments: scan0001.pdf Attached please find my comments to the July 1, 2010 - Rev. S Scope of Work. Mike Levy mikelevy c embargmail.com Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work Baclground Change first paragraph to read: During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the BCCC`s approved an independent peer review of the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report prepared by PBS &1 and dated October, 2009. Furthermore, the approval motion states that the independent expert is to be jointly selected by Coastal Zone Management and the Pelican Bay Services Division. Second Paragraph: Delete 1'st sentence. Remove "national estuary program" from 3'rd sentence. Add two sentences to the end, "Ideally, the peer review should be completed before a Water Circulation/ Flushing Modeling Program is undertaken by Coastal Zone Management. In any case, it should be undertaken as soon as possible." Delete the Third Paragraph. ConsiAers Lions First Paragraph: End the second sentence as follows: " - - - -- geology, natural estuary/ecosystems." (PBSD is not part of the water flushing/ circulation model program). Delete the Second Paragraph. Activities to be Performed during thl Peer Review I agree with the changes proposed by Tom Cravens in his email for the July 7, 2010 PBSD Board Meeting. Evaluation of Proposals First Paragraph; no comment. Item 1. End the second sentence as follows: a'------ - - - - -- marine biology, hydrology, geology, and natural estuary/ ecosystems." (The reference to the water flushing/ circulation model program has been deleted). Item 3. I am in agreement with Tom Cravens email distributed at the PBSD July 7, 2010 board meeting. `v 1 of 1 7/19/2010 9:02 JIM by LR Page 32 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12V p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 33 of 52 IB19 August 4, 2010 Mr. John Sorey 111, Chairman Coastal Advisory Committee City of Naples 220 Gulfshore Blvd. N Naples, FL 34102 Mr. Anthony Pires, Chairman Clam Bay Subcommittee of CAC 209 Madison Drive Naples, FL 34108 RE: Concerns about Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study Dear Sirs: The Pelican Bay Service Division Board is concerned that any assumptions used in the proposed Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study be fully vetted and only be used after the Clam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Final Report completed in October 2009 by PBS &J has been properly peer reviewed in its entirety. The results of any modeling are only as valid as the reliability of its input data. For instance, one of the criticisms of the PBS &J Report to date has questioned the very limited and unreliable tidal data collected within Clam Pass. The PBS &J Report concluded the data unreliable, and assumed it was similar to data collected in the Gulf in much deeper water. We feel such extrapolated data should be carefully peer reviewed before it becomes the basis of the Modeling Study. We encourage that this entire process be carefully vetted at each phase and the assumptions for future phases only be finalized after there is general agreement among experts as to the reasonableness of the results of each prior phase. To do otherwise will only serve to cast doubt on the validity of the final conclusions. Another concern of the Services Division is the way the Clam Bay Estuary has been defined to include bodies of water extending south to Doctor's Pass. In the past, Clam Bay consisted only of the NRPA. We are concerned that actions taken to improve the water quality of Venetian Bay and Moorings Bay might harm the water quality of the Clam Bay NRPA. We therefore urge that any actions initiated because of subsequent studies only be taken after careful consideration of the fragile nature of the Clam Bay NRPA and the possibility of unintended consequences. Sincerely, Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Pelican Bay Services Division Board Cc: Leo Ochs Gary McAlpin Page 33 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 34 of 52 191, � 1611 August 4,14y-7, 2010 Mr. John Sorey III, Chairman Coastal Advisory Committee City of Naples 220 Gulfshore Blvd. N Naples, FL 34102 Mr. Anthony Pires, Chairman Clam Bay Subcommittee of CAC 209 Madison Drive Naples, FL 34108 RE: Concerns about Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study Dear Sirs: The Pelican Bay Service Division Board is concerned that any assumptions used in the proposed Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study be fully vetted and only be used finalized after the Clam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Final Report completed in October 2009 by PBS &I has been properly peer reviewed in its entirety. The results of any modeling are only as valid as the reliability of its input data. For instance, one of the criticisms of the PBS &J Report to date has questioned the very limited and unreliable tidal data collected within Clam Pass. The PBS &J Report concluded the data unreliable, and assumed it was similar to data 4al:e collected in the Gulf in much deeper water. We feel such extrapolated data should be carefully peer reviewed before it becomes the basis of the Modeling Study. We encourage that this entire process be carefully vetted at each phase and the assumptions for future phases only be finalized after there is general agreement among experts as to the reasonableness of the results of each prior phase. To do otherwise will only serve to cast doubt on the validity of the final conclusions. Another concern of the Services Division is the way the Clam Bay Estuary has been defined to include bodies of water extending south to Doctor's Pass. In the past, Clam Bay consisted only of the NRPA. Although definiti by themselves aFe PFE)bably not impeFtant, We are concerned worry that some ow f iwre ^ eets actions taken to improve the water quality in the ^ eater Qam Bay extending to v ^°° of Venetian Bay and Moorings Bay might ultimately harm the water quality of the Clam Bay NRPA. as t.aditionall , defined by tu^ Services P",; We therefore urge that any actions initiated because of subsequent studies only be taken after careful consideration of the fragile nature of the Clam Bay NRPA and the possibility of unintended consequences. Sincerely, Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Pelican Bay Services Division Board Cc: Leo Ochs Gary McAlpin Page 34 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 P.M. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 35 of 52 919" 1611 July 7, 2010 by John Domenie Mr. John Sorey III, Chairman Coastal Advisory Committee City of Naples 220 Gulfshore Blvd. N Naples, FL 34102 Mr. Anthony Pires, Chairman Clam Bay Subcommittee of CAC 209 Madison Drive 1i Naples, FL 34108 + RE: Concerns about Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study I i Dear Sirs: V!" The Pelican Bay ervice Division Board is concerne. that any assun ti/�u se d in the ' y proposed Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study be t�ully.'yetted a0 oftlyr�ai D'.aiter the dam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Final Report completed in Octobi r 2009 by PBS &J has been properly peer reviewed in -its entirety. The results of any modeling are only as valid as the reliability of its input data.... I� For instance, one of the criticisms 0 PBS &J Report to: date1as 1.1 uestioned the verydimited and unreliable tidal data collected With' Cl a Pass. The PBS&}. Report concluded the data unreli.able;.and assumed i't��was similar to d � ollected'in the.d Ulfin much deeper water. We feel such extrapolated data should be careft y peer reviewed before it becomes the basis of the Modeling Study;:. We encourage that thisS.entire process be carefully vettetl at each phase and the assumptions for future phases only be:firialized after there.:is general agreement among experts as to the reasgnableness ofthe results of q;aic prior_p)jase. To do otherwise will only serve to cast doubt on the validity 6f the fir al. eoncli iz6ns. ` I Another concel n of the Se- i ces Division is the way the Clam Bay Estuary has been defined to include bodies :o €water.• extending south to Doctor's Pass. Although definitions by themselves are probably not important, we worry that somehow future projects to improve water quality in the greater. Clam Bay extending to Doctor's Pass might ultimately harm the water quality of Clam B.ay as b.m4Aiena�lly defined byte . We therefore urge that any actions initiated because of subsequent studies o 7betaken after careful consideration of the fragile nature of Clam Bay and the possibility of uned consequences. Sincerely, 6 eG ot,) (0 N) �-, �Lcs -U 8 Keith J. Dallas, Chairman ? elican Bay Services Division Board _c: Leo Ochs Gary McAlpin Page 35 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 36 of 52 ResnickL 161 1 �� B19 From: Mike Levy [mikelevy @embargntail.comi Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 3:51 PM To: ResnickL Subject: Concerns about Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study Attachments: scan0001.pd! Attached please find my take on the draft "Concerns About Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study ". 1 have changed the title to "Peer Review of PBS &J Report dated------- - - - - -" and have added another dimension to the letter; that P13SD would like to get the peer review underway, but are faced with language attempting to enlarge the task to include water circulation modeling and an overall Clam Bay Management Plan. The attached draft reflects my concern that an attempt is being made to make it look like PBSD is part of the overall Clam Bay project; that we are not and want to get the peer review of the PBS &J Report underway as we originally proposed and was approved by the BCCC. Mike Levy mikeleNrorl /embargmail.com To: John Sorey 111, Chairman Coastal Advisory Committee Anthony Pires, Chairman Clam Bay Subcommittee of CAC Subject: Peer Review of PBS&I Clam Bay System Data Collection Analysis Report dated October, 2009. Dear Sirs: PBSD has serious concerns regarding the validity of the methodology and conclusions of subject report. Our concerns are further heightened as this report is apparently being used as the basis of a Claris Bay Water Circulation /Flushing Modeling Program and possibly further work in Clam Bay. Accordingly we proposed, and the county agreed to a jointly sponsored PBSD/ CZAR peer review of subject report. The BCCC approved the joint peer review of subject report on December 15, 2009 and we would very much like to see it underway. We are troubled that the flawed subject report is being used by PBS &J as the basis for further studies in Clam Bay, paid for by Collier County Taxpayers. The results of any modeling are only as valid as the reliability of its input data_ So what is holding up getting the Peer Review of subject report underway? From our point of view, it is language added into each draft Scope of Work that attempts to include a Water Circulation /Flushing Modeling Program as well as the development of a comprehensive management plan for Clam Bay. The implication being that somehow PBSD is a part of this overall effort. This Is simply not true; PBSD is not in any way part of the CAC activities in Clam Bay. We simply asked for a peer review of subject report, strongly support the BCCC approval of same, and would like to see it underway. We would like to finalize the Peer Review Scope of Work with the CAC (without added tasks). The PBSD Board has approved only a peer review of the subject PBS &1 report. Another concern of the PBSD is that the CAC is using the term Clam Bay to include bodies of water extending south to Doctor's Pass. In the past, Clam Bay consisted only of the NRPA. We are concerned that actions taken to improve the water quality of Venetian Bay and Moorings Bay might harm the water quality of the Clam Bay NRPA. As you may be aware, Pelican Bay residents spend in the area of $1M a year to maintain the water quality of the Clam Bay NRPA. We therefore urge that any actions initiated because of subsequent studies only be taken after careful consideration of the fragile nature of Clam Bay NRPA, and the possibility of unintended consequences. Sincerely, Keith 1. Dallas, Chairman PBSD Cc: Leo Ochs, Gary McAlpin Page 36 of 52 08130/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 37 of 52 191 Lisa, Attached are revised drafts of the Peer Review Scope of Work (one in final form, and one showing the initial changes in red and subsequent changes in blue). Please distribute them along with my explanation to PBSD board members and the interested public in anticipation of discussion at the PBSD meeting of August 4th. First, for some background on what has happened since our last PBSD meeting. After our meeting, I updated Gary McAlpin and the Clam Bay Subcommittee on the discussions at our July PBSD meeting and tried to address the concern that the PBSD and CZM were never going to agree on a peer review process (see Gary McAlpin's July 8th email to CAC that was distributed earlier). I said we had spent a lot of effort on this, and hoped we could resolve the language in August. After discussions with Steve Feldhaus, CZM subsequently has concluded that it prefers to split the Clam Bay issues into 2 segments, the review of the PBS&J report continuing with the PBSD, and future projects like water circulation modeling being with the Foundation (See 7/21/10 Clam Bay Subcommittee agenda item Clam Bay Sub - Committee Peer Review Discussion attached). After receiving comments from individuals, we took those comments and the ones received at our last meeting, and incorporated as many of the comments as possible into the July 23rd draft. On Thursday I had a meeting with Gary McAlpin of CZM to review the July 23rd proposed language to see if he would recommend their acceptance by the CAC and the Clam Bay Subcommittee. After much discussion we agreed to present the attached draft including the changes in blue to both organizations. The rationale for the changes: * We wanted everyone to understand that the proposed language is a "guideline document ". We recognize that there are concerns that this language may be manipulated by others. The idea of a "guideline" recognizes that each group may interpret the words differently, and that the ultimate fail safe is that each group (the PBSD and the CAC) will independently rank responding professionals using their own methods and priorities, and reserve the option of designating some responders as unacceptable to their organization. * Specifically, the new first paragraph deals with the "guidance" issue. * The second paragraph of "background" uses both "historical" and "water quality" data. The point is we want all the relevant data reviewed. * - Gary wanted the reference to "national estuary program" left in definitions. I think this is an area where many Pelican Bay people are suspicious of such experts, but I see no harm in including the language as a possibility. PBSD has the option of saying a certain professional is unacceptable. * In the third "background" paragraph we left in "early in" the development of the water flushing /circulation model, versus "at the beginning of'. As some who commented on this language indicated, it is semantics since in one sense that project has already commenced. I think in our other letter we will emphasize the need to resolve the validity of the conclusions of the PBS&J report before going too far with any future modeling. * In the first paragraph of the "considerations" section, we left in a reference to "knowledge of Florida water quality standards /guidelines along with modeling, modeling data and collection methodologies ". Again this is an area where people may interpret the words differently. It was left in because the PBS&J report mentions these items and a thorough review should comment on the appropriateness of all their comments and conclusions. Again, different readers may have different opinions on the width and depth the reviewer should have in these areas. Page 37 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. 1611 From: Keith Dallas To: Resnicki Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: Proposed Draft pf Peer Review Scope of Work Date: Friday, July 30, 2010 2:24:04 PM Attachments: Peer Review Draft ES - 8- 3- 1.docx ATT00001..htm Peer Review Draft ES - 8- 3- 2.docx ATT00002..htm Clam Bay Sub 7 -21 -10 discussion item.odf ATT00003..htm Lisa, Attached are revised drafts of the Peer Review Scope of Work (one in final form, and one showing the initial changes in red and subsequent changes in blue). Please distribute them along with my explanation to PBSD board members and the interested public in anticipation of discussion at the PBSD meeting of August 4th. First, for some background on what has happened since our last PBSD meeting. After our meeting, I updated Gary McAlpin and the Clam Bay Subcommittee on the discussions at our July PBSD meeting and tried to address the concern that the PBSD and CZM were never going to agree on a peer review process (see Gary McAlpin's July 8th email to CAC that was distributed earlier). I said we had spent a lot of effort on this, and hoped we could resolve the language in August. After discussions with Steve Feldhaus, CZM subsequently has concluded that it prefers to split the Clam Bay issues into 2 segments, the review of the PBS&J report continuing with the PBSD, and future projects like water circulation modeling being with the Foundation (See 7/21/10 Clam Bay Subcommittee agenda item Clam Bay Sub - Committee Peer Review Discussion attached). After receiving comments from individuals, we took those comments and the ones received at our last meeting, and incorporated as many of the comments as possible into the July 23rd draft. On Thursday I had a meeting with Gary McAlpin of CZM to review the July 23rd proposed language to see if he would recommend their acceptance by the CAC and the Clam Bay Subcommittee. After much discussion we agreed to present the attached draft including the changes in blue to both organizations. The rationale for the changes: * We wanted everyone to understand that the proposed language is a "guideline document ". We recognize that there are concerns that this language may be manipulated by others. The idea of a "guideline" recognizes that each group may interpret the words differently, and that the ultimate fail safe is that each group (the PBSD and the CAC) will independently rank responding professionals using their own methods and priorities, and reserve the option of designating some responders as unacceptable to their organization. * Specifically, the new first paragraph deals with the "guidance" issue. * The second paragraph of "background" uses both "historical" and "water quality" data. The point is we want all the relevant data reviewed. * - Gary wanted the reference to "national estuary program" left in definitions. I think this is an area where many Pelican Bay people are suspicious of such experts, but I see no harm in including the language as a possibility. PBSD has the option of saying a certain professional is unacceptable. * In the third "background" paragraph we left in "early in" the development of the water flushing /circulation model, versus "at the beginning of'. As some who commented on this language indicated, it is semantics since in one sense that project has already commenced. I think in our other letter we will emphasize the need to resolve the validity of the conclusions of the PBS&J report before going too far with any future modeling. * In the first paragraph of the "considerations" section, we left in a reference to "knowledge of Florida water quality standards /guidelines along with modeling, modeling data and collection methodologies ". Again this is an area where people may interpret the words differently. It was left in because the PBS&J report mentions these items and a thorough review should comment on the appropriateness of all their comments and conclusions. Again, different readers may have different opinions on the width and depth the reviewer should have in these areas. Page 37 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of W k D''�cus on Page 38 of 52 7 (� � 1 B 19 * Second bullet of "activities to be performed" section includes "the applicability of using the collected data in the proposed water circulation /flushing model program ". Since it is discussed in the PBS&J report it is better that it is discussed by the reviewer. * We kept in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the "evaluation of proposals" section, even though the first sentence probably says the same thing. * The rest of this draft is the same as the draft of Monday, July 23rd. I would like everyone to review all this language. Please recognize that everyone is most comfortable with the language he /she drafted themselves. I think we should review the language in its' entirety, and remember it is a guideline. Ultimately we will decide as a group which responders we will recommend in what order, and which are unacceptable on any basis. Time is quickly running out. It is my opinion that this meeting is probably the last opportunity the PBSD will be given to develop a peer review process with the County. If we don't come up with concrete language, we will be seen as a group with which the County can't work and they may take the PBS&J report to the FDEP for a rubber stamp. At Wednesday's meeting, after appropriate discussions of all members and concerned public, I would like to vote the proposed language either up or down. A yes vote would take us to the next steps, the request for proposals, the responses, the meeting for the PBSD and CZM /CAC to separately prioritize the responses etc. A no vote will stop the discussions and probably cause the County to go their own way. Page 38 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay S i k' il' on l Qsion .:. 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 39 of 52 Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work March 15, 2010 March 19, 2010 — Rev. 1 June 25, 2010 — Rev. 2 June 30, 2010 — Rev. 3 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 4 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 5 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 6 July 23, 2010 — Rev. 7 July 29, 2010 — Rev 8 This is a guideline document developed by the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) and the Coastal Zone Management/Coastal Advisory Committee (CZM /CAC) with the intent of providing guidance to aid the PBSD and CZM /CAC in jointly selecting a peer reviewer for the October 2009 PBSD report described below. Background During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved an independent peer review of the October 2009 PBSD report and the work required to complete the development of a comprehensive management plan for the Clam Bay Estuary. Specifically, the BCC authorized that a recognized expert perform an independent review of the Final October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report completed by PBS &J. To complete this analysis, a thorough review of all available historical /water quality data including the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) historical water quality data is required. This expert, jointly selected by PBSD and Coastal Zone Management (CZM), will be from an academic, university, research institute or national estuary program and not directly involved with any consulting firm. Additionally, this individual will be independent without any material relationship with the PBSD, the Pelican Bay Foundation or Collier County government. The review of the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis Report is proposed to be conducted early in the development of the water flushing /circulation model. It is also recommended that the cost of this effort be split between the PBSD and CZM. The current financial commitment from the PBSD is only for the PBSD report evaluation. After the peer review of the Final PBSD report is completed and distributed, the PBSD will consider participating in the peer review of other studies or reports that includes the Clam Bay NRPA. Consideration A thorough review of the PBSD report should involve a number of critical sciences. Among others, these disciplines would involve water quality, marine biology, modeling /hydrology, geology, natural estuary/ecosystems and knowledge of Florida water quality standards /guidelines along with modeling, modeling data and collection methodologies. The water quality expertise that is required for the PBS &J report is not just the review and analysis to state standards but also expertise with respect to the proactive development of our specific water quality standards for the Clam Bay estuary system and the establishment of our own multi -year estuary management program that will address critical water quality issues as opposed to having FDEP establish solutions. While other skill sets are important, the vast majority of the reviewer expertise needs to be focused in these discipline areas. Page 39 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 40 of 52 1611 B 19 Activities to be performed during this Peer Review 1. Review, analysis and critique of the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report dated October 2009 performed by PBSU to include: • Analysis of all available historical data including the Services Division's historical data /information. • Accuracy and sufficiency of the data collection efforts undertaken in the development of the PBSU Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report given the fragile nature of the Clam Bay NRPA, the contracting constraints and ability to augment data with future collection and the applicability of using the collected data in the proposed water circulation /flushing model program. • Accuracy of methodologies used in the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report performed by PBSU. • Appropriateness of findings, conclusions, recommendations, and summary of the report. Evaluation of Proposals Already pre- identified candidates by the PBSD and CMZ/CAC will be solicited to submit credentials and proposals to perform a Peer Review of the PBSU Data Collection and Analysis report. Only pre- identified candidates will be allowed to submit proposals for evaluation. The Collier County purchasing department would confirm with the PBSD Chairman and the CAC Chairman the proposed list of candidates to be approached and then initiate this solicitation. Solicitations for RFP to each candidate will be recorded onto a log and the log provided to PBSD and CZM /CAC. All proposals will be jointly evaluated and must be acceptable to both Collier County Coastal Zone Management /CAC and the Pelican Bay Services Division. The Evaluation and Selection process is outlined as follows: 1. Candidates will submit their qualifications, experiences, related work history and schedule for consideration. This summary should not be more that 4 pages in total length and focus on water quality, marine biology, hydrology, geology, and natural estuary/ecosystems. 2. Selection will be based on a total composite score. This score will be based on knowledge, experience, work history and background in similar ecosystems as per the criteria listed in item one above. Schedule will also be considered in this evaluation. 3. The Pelican Bay Services Division will perform their own independent evaluation and submit their three top candidates for discussion. Coastal Zone Management/CAC will do the same. The six potential candidates will be jointly evaluated by a committee consisting of The Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Vice Chair of the Pelican Bay Services Division, and the director /Manager of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Chairman of the CAC, the Vice Chair of the CAC and the Director of the CZM. This group will select and recommend the final candidate. 4. The final selection must be approved by both the Pelican Bay Services Division board and the CZM /CAC. The final candidate will also be approved by the BCC. Page 40 of 52 08130/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 41 of 52 16 Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work March 15, 2010 March 19, 2010 — Rev. 1 June 25, 2010 — Rev. 2 June 30, 2010 —Rev. 3 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 4 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 5 July 1, 2010 —Rev. 6 July 23, 2010 — Rev. 7 July 29, 2010 — Rev 8 This is a guideline document developed by the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) and the Coastal Zone Management/Coastal Advisory Committee (CZM /CAC) with the intent of providing guidance to aid the PBSD and CZM /CAC in jointly selecting a peer reviewer for the October 2009 PBS &J report described below. Background During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved an independent peer review of the October 2009 PBS &J report and the work required to complete the development of a comprehensive management plan for the Clam Bay Estuary. Specifically, the BCC authorized that a recognized expert perform an independent review of the Final October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report FeGeRtly completed by PBS &J. To complete this analysis, a thorough review of all available historical /water quality data including the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) historical water quality data is required. This expert, jointly selected by PBSD and Coastal Zone Management (CZM), will be from an academic, university, sF research institute or national estuary program and not directly involved with any consulting firm. Additionally, this individual will be independent without any material relationship with the PBSD, the Pelican Bay Foundation or Collier County government. The review of the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis Report is proposed to be conducted at the hegiRRi^^ of early in the development of the water flushing /circulation model. It is also recommended that the cost of this effort be split between the PBSD and CZM. Although The current financial commitment from the PBSD is only for the PBS &J report evaluation. the intent with any development of the rRaR 9eMent plan(cam) that mw he GFeated After the peer review of vvm- r- vn 7�cvvrvpnTCnrvr- crn.�- rrcmagcn �v� �cpa� �TaTa that I l 1pT-gG p the Final PBS &J report is completed and distributed, the PBSD will consider participating in the peer review of other studies or reports that includes the Clam Bay NRPA. Consideration A thorough review of the PBS &J report should involve a number of critical sciences. Among others, these disciplines would involve water quality, marine biology, modeling /hydrology, geology, and natural estuary/ecosystems and with respect to the nropesed water knowledge of wateF quality a4;4-Florida water quality standards /guidelines along with modeling, modeling data and collection methodologies. The water quality expertise that is required for the PBS &J report Mere is not just the review and analysis to state standards but also expertise with respect to the proactive development of our specific water quality standards for the Clam Bay estuary system and the establishment of our Page 41 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 42 of 52 ' 819 161 J own multi -year estuary management program that will address critical water quality issues as opposed to having FDEP establish solutions. While other skill sets are important, the vast majority of the reviewer expertise needs to be focused in these discipline areas. Activities to be performed during this +n+tW Peer Review 2. Review, analysis and critique of the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report dated October 2009 performed by PBSU to include: • Analysis of all available historical data including the Services Division's historical data /information. • Accuracy and sufficiency of the data collection efforts undertaken in the development of the PBSU Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report given the fragile nature of the Clam Bay NRPA, the contracting constraints and ability to augment data with future collection and the applicability of using the collected data in the proposed water circulation /flushing model program. • Accuracy of methodologies used in the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report performed by PBSU. • Appropriateness of findings, and conclusions, recommendations, and summary of the report. Evaluation of Proposals Already pre- identified candidates by the PBSD and CMZ /CAC will be solicited to submit credentials and proposals to perform a Peer Review of the PBSU Data Collection and Analysis report. Only pre- identified candidates will be allowed to submit proposals for evaluation. The Collier County purchasing department would confirm with the PBSD Chairman and the CAC Chairman the proposed list of candidates to be approached and then initiate this solicitation. Solicitations for RFP to each candidate will be recorded onto a log and the log provided to PBSD and CZM /CAC. All proposals will be jointly evaluated and must be acceptable to both Collier County Coastal Zone Management /CAC and the Pelican Bay Services Division. The Evaluation and Selection process is outlined as follows: 5. Candidates will submit their qualifications, experiences, related work history and schedule for consideration. This summary should not be more that 4 pages in total length and focus on water quality, marine biology, hydrology, geology, and natural estuary/ecosystems. aad 6. Selection will be based on a total composite score. This score will be based on knowledge, experience, work history and background in similar ecosystems as per the criteria listed in item one above. Schedule will also be considered in this evaluation. 7. The Pelican Bay Services Division will perform their own independent evaluation and submit their three top candidates for discussion. Coastal Zone Management/CAC will do the same. The six potential candidates will be jointly evaluated by a committee consisting of The Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Vice Chair of the Pelican Bay Services Division, and the director /Manager of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Chairman of the CAC, the Vice Chair of the CAC and the Director of the CZM. This group will select and recommend the final candidate. 8. The final selection must be approved byasseptable to both the Pelican Bay Services Division board and the CZM /CAC. The final candidate will also be approved by the BCC. Page 42 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 43 of 52 B19 16111' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation for the CAC to recommend approval to the BCC the changes as outlined below to the Clam Bay Peer review process with the PBSD. OBJECTIVE: Recommendation for the CAC to recommend approval to the BCC the changes as outlined below to the Clam Bay Peer review process with the PBSD. CONSIDERATION: At the 12/15/2009 BCC meeting the Board approved the following objective for Clam Bay: "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 June 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." Also during the considerations portion of the executive summary, the following was discussed and approved concerning Peer Review: "It is also recommended 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 PBSD 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." The following budget was approved at that time: Fund 111 - Unincorporated Collier County Court Recording and Documentation Costs Water Quality Monitoring in Clam Bay System Chemicals and YSI probes lab Fees (9 locations for 12 months) Consulting and Analysis Support Public Outreach and Communication Peer Review Sediment toxicology Installation of Beach and Inlet Safety signs and Permitting Permitting and Installation of Navigational Markers in Clam Bay Estuary Wildlife and Habitat Preliminary Analysis Fund 111 Subtotal $3,400 $1,000 $18,000 $4,000 $1,000 $5,000 $30,000 $5,000 $15,000 $20,000 $102,400 Page 43 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 44 of 52 16 111 B19 Although the PBSD was identified as the organization to jointly participate with CZM in the peer review, the PBSD has focused only on the peer review of the Data Collection and Analysis Report from PBSU not committed to the Peer review of the modeling program. PBSD has sought to limit their commitment/participation to this portion of the project. Additionally, it has proven hard to reach agreement with on the scope of this peer review with the PBSD. The modeling program is the heart of the program and the area needed to concentrate our technical expertise on. The Pelican Bay Foundation has approached the County staff with a request to participate in the technical development and review of the modeling program with two independent qualified consultants. This proposal is acceptable to the County because: 1. It establishes a working relationship and framework with the Pelican Bay Community to discuss and address technical issues. 2. It is proposed in a collaborative working relationship as opposed to a critique format of a peer review. 3. It provides additional technical expertise to confirm our focus, approach and conclusions. 4. The PB Foundation will pay for their own consultants with the only cost incurred by the County being to bring these consultants up to speed with the background and results to date. 5. It allows us to begin discussion and work of the modeling process. 6. While we are working on the technical issues of the modeling program with the PB Foundation, it allows us to continue to try to reach closure with the PBSD on the Peer Review of the PBSU Data Collection and Analysis report. Staff has reevaluated the existing budget and is recommending that the budget be reprogrammed to provide money for PBSD peer review and the collaborative model development with the PB Foundation. Funding and approach should be reallocated into two phases: 1. One portion of the Peer Review would be the peer review of the PBSU Data Collection and Analysis report. This can be completed anytime when and if agreement is reached with the PBSD on the scope of this work. If agreement is not reached then FDEP has expressed a willingness to evaluate the report and comment on it accuracy and credibility. $4,500 has been set aside for the County portion of this work. 2. The second portion of this work is the technical participation and review of the modeling program. $25,000 has been set aside for this work which would involve bringing the Foundations consultants up to speed and more group /discussion meetings to discuss scope, review results and formulate next steps and findings. Page 44 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 45 of 52 / l i �� 819 1' Our revised budget projections are as follows: Fund 111 - Unincorporated Collier Court Recording and Documentation Costs Water Quality Monitoring in Clam Bay System Chemicals and YSI probes lab Fees (9 locations for 12 months) Consulting and Analysis Support Public Outreach and Communication Peer Review of the PBSD Report - PBSD Technical Development Modeling - PB Foundation Sediment toxicology Beach /Inlet Safety signs and Permitting Permit/Install Nav Markers in Clam Bay Wildlife and Habitat Preliminary Analysis Budget Revised Spent Available To Go $3,400 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $500 $1,000 $800 $800 $0 $0 $18,000 $15,000 $12,500 $2,500 $2,500 $4,000 $4,000 $0 $4,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $4,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $30,000 $30,000 $31,831 - $1,831 - $1,831 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $15,000 $15,000 $0 $15,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 Total $102,400 $97,800 $47,131 $50,669 $50,669 Recommendations are sought as follows: 1. Recommend to the BCC that the peer review process as authorized by the BCC on 12/15/2009 be modified to include a peer review of the October 2009 PBSD technical report and a technical collaboration of the modeling program with the PB Foundation. 2. Reallocate funding from what was originally approved to provide for $4,500 for the PBSD Peer review and $25,000 for the technical collaboration of the modeling program with the PB Foundation. 3. Approve Revision 9 of the Peer Review scope of work with the PBSD. The latest revision to the PBSD peer review program is attached. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: FISCAL IMPACT: The Source of funds has previously been approved from the general revenue Fund 111 on 12/15/2009 and reallocated as discussed within the existing funding. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has not been reviewed or approved by the County Attorney's Office. Page 45 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 46 of 52 16 1 919 RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation for the CAC to recommend approval to the BCC the following changes to the Clam Bay Peer review process with the PBSD. 1. Recommend to the BCC that the peer review process as authorized by the BCC on 12/15/2009 be modified to include a peer review of the October 2009 PBSU technical report and a technical collaboration of the modeling program with the PB Foundation 2. Reallocate funding from what was originally approved to provide for $4,500 for the PBSD Peer review and $25,000 for the technical collaboration of the modeling program with the PB Foundation. 3. Approve Revision 9 of the Peer Review scope of work with the PBSD PREPARED BY: Gary McAlpin, CZM Director Page 46 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 47 of 52 F-1 MCA! inGa 1 6 From: Feldhaus, Stephen [sf @feldhauslaw.com] Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 7:05 AM To: Bill Carpenter; Bob Naegele; Bob Uek; Doug Esson; Jim Hoppensteadt; Mike Coyne; Robert Pendergrass; Ronnie Bellone; Feldhaus, Stephen Cc: ochs_I; John Sorey; McAlpinGary; ramsey_m; Cora Obley; hprice @price - law.com; Mary Johnson; Doug Durbin; Erik J. Olsen (eolsen @ osen- associates.com); Geoffrey Scott Gibson; Hunter Hansen; John Baron; John Chandler; John Domenie; John laizzo; Keith Dallas; Mary Anne Womble; Mike Levy; Theodore Raia; Tom Cravens; Joanne Hobin; Joesph Chicurel ; Lee Canning; Merlin Lickhalter; Pat Bush; Philip St. Germain; Stanley Farb; Susan Boland; W. Terry Upson; William Klauber Subject: A Clam Bay Update Dear Foundation Board Members, Yesterday Jim Hoppensteadt and I had a potentially historic meeting with Marla Ramsey, Administrator of Collier County Public Services, and Gary McAlpin, Director of Collier County Coastal Zone Management. The meeting would not have been possible without the leadership and support of Leo Ochs, Collier County Manager, and John Sorey, Naples City Councilman and Chairman of the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee. The purpose of the meeting was to determine whether the Foundation and Collier County could find a way to work together on Clam Bay and particularly on the ten year permit and management plan for Clam Bay. I am pleased to be able to report that we reached a preliminary and tentative agreement, although there is a ton of work that remains to be done to flesh out the particulars and to ensure that the key players on both sides are on board. And while nothing will be final until an agreement is reduced to writing and formally agreed by both the Board of County Commissioners and the Pelican Bay Foundation Board, which will take months to put together assuming that there is support for this endeavor at the Board levels of the County and the Foundation, we have agreed to begin immediately to work together on the scientific issues underlying the permit and management plan. Our coastal engineering and environmental consultants will engage with the coastal engineering and environmental consultants of the county in an attempt jointly to determine what studies of Clam Bay are required, how they should be conducted, etc. This is a groundbreaking endeavor. On our part, the Foundation is recognizing the legitimate role of the County to be involved in the management of a key County resource. We are also recognizing the legitimate role of the other stakeholders in Clam Bay and in the larger coastal estuary system, including the residents of Seagate and the City of Naples. On its part, the County is recognizing the legitimate role of the Foundation as the party entrusted by the 1982 Declarations to protect and preserve Clam Bay, both for the benefit of our members and for the residents of all of Collier County. The proposed resolution will not, however, be based upon the 1982 Declarations nor will it involve an acknowledgement by the County that the 1982 Declarations apply to the submerged lands of Clam Bay, a main point of contention between us. Instead, we propose to agree, in a binding document, to joint management of Clam Bay under the permit and the ten year management plan, with a provision for binding arbitration in the event we are unable to reach agreement on scientific or policy issues with respect to that management. Our proposed resolution does not resolve the red and green lateral navigational marker issue, but I would note that it may well be a harbinger of the possibility of a resolution yet to come. For now, we are going to continue to disagree on that issue, and each party will retain all their full legal rights with respect to that issue. While the "contracting party" with the County will be the Foundation, we will want to ensure that Pelican Bay speaks with one voice on this endeavor. Accordingly, I am copying both the PBSD Board and the PBPOA Board on this email, with a request that they vet this proposal and provide the Foundation with their comments. I would also expect that the Foundation would seek additional community input on this proposed resolution, and to begin that process I am copying the Pelican Bay Mangrove Action Group President on this email. Page 47 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services i i o R!�ular s' 9 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of WorkIcor 1 Page 48 of 52 As always, the devil will be in the details, and there is much work yet to be done. And yet however this endeavor turns out, the step we took yesterday is emblematic of a reality that we cannot escape and that will be part of any ultimate resolution of our "dispute" with the County over the governance of Clam Bay —both the Foundation and the County have a legitimate seat at the table on Clam Bay matters. What we have tentatively and preliminarily agreed is one way to recognize that joint interest. We are both hopeful that we can implement our desired resolution, which is why we have agreed to begin working together on the science of Clam Bay immediately, but if for some reason we fail to reach final agreement, we are still going to wind up working together in Clam Bay. To me, it makes more sense to do that voluntarily than to battle this out for years before the DEP, the Corps, the FFWCC, the USCG, the NOAA, etc., and, potentially, the courts. Best, Steve Feldhaus 0 40 Pag�48 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 49 of 52 CAC August 12, 2010 VIII -2 ew Briness 16'°1 1 B19 McAlpinGary From: Feldhaus, Stephen [sf @feldhauslaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 3:54 PM To: McAlpinGary Cc: ochs_I; ramsey_m; James Hoppensteadt; Erik J. Olsen (eolsen @olsen - associates.com); Doug Durbin Subject: Clam Bay Gary, I had a very productive conference call today with Erik Olsen and Doug Durbin, whom, as I indicated fast week, have been out of pocket. We are ready to rock and roll on Clam Bay, and would appreciate your authorizing PBS &J and Coastal Engineering to release their work product to Erik and Doug and to cooperate with them so that we can begin to catch up with you and with your consultants. It would be helpful as we start this process if you and your team would copy Erik and Doug and Jim and myself on just about everything. That will cut down our need for coordination among ourselves I will be glad to have Erik and Doug make the first contact if you just let me know whom they should call. We are enthusiastic about this opportunity to work on a collegial basis with the county on Clam Bay matters, and look forward to establishing a solid, long term working relationship. I can tell you that we have received overwhelming support within our community for this endeavor. Now it is up to us to make it work, and to create a structure that the leadership on both sides will buy into. . Please feel free to call me at any time if you have any questions or comments about the best way we should get this off the ground. I know that there will be a learning curve on everyone's part, but with good will and hard work I expect that we are going to make a lot of progress quickly. The contact info for Erik, Doug, Jim, and me follows. Best, Steve Erik J. Olsen Olsen Associates, Inc. 4438 Herschel Street Jacksonville, FL 32210 Phone: 904 - 387 -6114 Fax: 904 - 384 -7368 Email: eolsen @ olsen- associates.com Douglas J. Durbin Entrix, Inc. 3905 Crescent Park Drive • Riverview, FL 33578 Phone: 813 - 664 -0440 Fax: 813 - 625 -5033 Email: ddurbinC@entrix.com CAC August 12,. 2010 VIII -2 New Business 8of11 James F. Hoppensteadt Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. . 6251 Pelican Bay Boulevard Naples, FL 34108 Phone: 239 -596 -6180, extension 223 Fax: 239 - 597 -6927 Cell: 239 - 398 -7074 Email: Jimh elicanbay.ors Stephen M. Feldhaus Feldhaus Law Group, P.C. 390152nd Street NW Washington, DC 20016 Phone: 202 - 237 -0511 Fax: 202 - 207 -1027 Cell: 202- 531 -2211 Email: sf(cDfeldhauslaw.com Page 49 15T+ 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Disc SSs110 �'AC: Rugust 12, 2010 Page 50 of 52 VIII -2 New Business 9of11 161 ��B19 Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work March 15, 2010 March 19, 2010 — Rev. June 25, 2010 —Rev. 2 June 30, 2010 — Rev. 3 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 4 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 5 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 6 July 23, 2010 —Rev. 7 July 29, 2010 — Rev 8 August 5.2010- Rev. 9 This is a guideline document developed by the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) and the Coastal Zone Management/Coastal Advisory Committee (CZM /CAC) with the intent of providing guidance to aid the PBSD and CZM /CAC in jointly selecting a peer reviewer for the October 2009 PBS &J report described below. Background During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved an independent peer review of the October 2009 PBS &J report and the work required to complete the development of a comprehensive management plan for the Clam Bay Estuary. Specifically, the BCC authorized that a recognized expert perform an independent review of the Final October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report completed by PBS &J. (hereinafter the "October 2009 PBS &J Report"l To complete this analysis, a thorough review of all available historicaltwater quality data including the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) historical water quality data is required. This expert, jointly selected by PBSD and Coastal Zone Management (CZM), will be from an academic, university, research institute or national estuary program and not directly involved with any consulting firm. Additionally, this individual will be independent without any material relationship with the PBSD, the Pelican Bay Foundation or Collier County govemment. The review of the October 2009 PBS &J Report Repsrt is proposed to be conducted early in the development of the water flushing /circulation model. It is also recommended that the cost of this effort be split between the PBSD and CZM. The current financial commitment from the PBSD is only for the October 2009 PBS &J Report PBSU reped evaluation. After the peer review of the October 2009 PBS &J Report is completed and distributed, the PBSD will consider participating in the peer review of other studies or reports that includes the Clam Bay NRPA. Consideration Page 50 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 51 of 52 16111` B19 A thorough review of the October 2009 PBS &J Report R 4&.14epsr-- should involve a number of critical sciences. Among others, these disciplines would involve water quality, marine biology, modeling /hydrology, geology, natural estuary/ecosystems and knowledge of Florida water quality standards/guidelines along with modeling, modeling data and collection methodologies. 4- :Activities to be performed during this Peer Review of the October 2009 PBS &J Formatted: Bullets and Numbering I Report Formatted: Font Bold Review, analysis and critique of the October 2009 PBS &J Report. Data GelleGtien and Analysis FepeFt dated GGtebeF 2909 peFfeFFAed by P88W to include: _- _: Wil Evaluation of Proposals Already pre - identified candidates by the PBSD and CMZ/CAC will be solicited to submit credentials and proposals to perform a Peer Review of the October 2009 PBS &J Report . Only pre- identified candidates will be allowed to submit proposals for evaluation. The Collier County purchasing department would confirm with the PBSD Chairman and the CAC Chairman the proposed list of candidates to be approached and then initiate this solicitation. Solicitations for RFP to each candidate will be recorded onto a log and the log provided to PBSD and CZM /CAC. All proposals will be jointly evaluated and must be acceptable to both Collier County Coastal Zone Management /CAC and the Pelican Bay Services Division. The Evaluation and Selection process is outlined as follows: z Page 51 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a - Status of Peer Review Scope of Work Discussion Page 52 of 52 B19 1. Candidates will submit their qualifications, experiences, related work history and schedule for consideration. This summary should not be more that 4 pages in total length and focus on water quality, marine biology, hydrology, geology, and natural estuary/ecosystems. 4-2. Selection will be based on a total composite score. This score will be based on Formatted: Bullets and Numbering knowledge, experience, work history and background in similar ecosystems as per the criteria listed in item one above. Schedule will also be considered in this evaluation. 4-3. The Pelican Bay Services Division will perform their own independent evaluation and submit their three top candidates for discussion. Coastal Zone Management/CAC will do the same. The six potential candidates will be jointly evaluated by a committee consisting of The Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Vice Chair of the Pelican Bay Services Division, and the director /Manager of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Chairman of the CAC, the Vice Chair of the CAC and the Director of the CZM. This group will select and recommend the final candidate. 4-4. The final selection must be approved by both the Pelican Bay Services Division board and the CZM /CAC, which approvals will not be unreasonably withheld. The final candidate selection will apse -be appraved -made by the BCC. 3 Page 52 of 52 08/30/2010 at 12:05 p.m. n3SD Joint Peer Review 1611 g19 Subject: PBSD Joint Peer Review From: mlmassocaicp@aol.com Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:25:01 -0400 To: Keithdallas @comcast.net, Teedupl@aol.com, nfnl6799@naples.net, JosieGeoff @aol.com, JPCBAC @comcast.net, mikelevy @embargmail.com, tedraia @yahoo.com, hunter.hansen @hilton.com, jbaron @watersideshops.com, hobodory @comcast.net, iaizzo @comcast.com, jpcbac @comcast.net Dear PBSD Board Members, I am writing on behalf of the Mangrove Action Group to commend the position of the PBSD Board at its August meeting against proceeding with Collier County's Coast Zone Management Department in a joint peer review of the PBS&J study, "Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis." In December 2009, 1 wrote to the PBSD Board calling for just such a peer review. It was and continues to be our belief that the findings presented in the PBS&J report are 1) not backed by adequate data, 2) are biased against the Pelican Bay community and its historical stewardship of Clam Bay, and 3) are politically motivated to solve the water problems of the larger region at the expense of the Clam Bay estuarine preserve. In December, we argued for a vigorous, unbiased assessment of the PBS&J report with respect to the underlying data and analysis, as well as the conclusions and recommendations. A peer review had been contemplated in the County's own design for the PBS&J contract. However, the scope has been ill- defined and subject to continual redefinition from when it was presented well over a year ago to the Pelican Bay Foundation Board in April 2009. When the PBSD Board sought to simplify and focus the peer review at a meeting called for that purpose this past spring, the CZM responded with numerous additional modifications, essentially seeking to curtail the scope of the review to the water quality findings and to postpone a review of the circulation study data. The CZM Manager has also indicated at meetings of the Coastal Advisory Committee that there is no rush to complete the peer review. In fact, the modeling effort that was to incorporate the circulation data in question has already been approved to proceed and is underway. This belies any sincere interest on the part of the CZM to undertake serious review of the adequacy of the data. The PBSD was right to decline to continue with the joint peer review process under such compromised circumstances. However, we urge the Board to consider going forward with its own independent peer review to ensure that the interests of the Pelican Bay community in protecting the Clam Bay ecosystem are adequately addressed. Sincerely, Mary McLean Johnson President Mangrove Action Group 9/1/2010 12:31 P11 16101` 819 Prom: lor3for3@aol.com Subject: Rev 9- Peer Review Scope of Work Date: September 1, 2010 3:32:02 AM EDT To: teedupl @ aol.com, keithdallas @comcast.net, nfn167999naples.net, josiegeoff @aol.com, hunter. hansen@hilton.com, iaizzo @com cast. net, j baron 9watersideshops.com, mikelevy@embargmail.com, tedraia @yahoo.com, hobodory9com cast. net, jpcbac @comcast.net Dear PBSD Board Members, I think it is important that you be aware of the revisions on the Peer Review Scope of Work made by Mr. McAlpin before the document was presented to the full CAC for approval on August 12, 2010. I have problem with Mr. McAlpin's practice of rewriting what has been approved by the CAC -Clam Bay Subcommittee, then present it to the full CAC for approval. I noticed on many occassions, he would further rewrite what has been approved by the CAC, and then present it to the BCC for approval. After a number of rewrites and changes, at the end, Mr. McAlpin receives final approval from BCC on exactly what he wants. The July 29, 2010 — Rev. 8 of the Peer Review Scope of Work presented to Mr. Gary McAlpin by PBSD states: 3. The Pelican Bay Services Division will perform their own independent evaluation and submit their three top candidates for discussion. Coastal Zone Management/CAC will do the same. The six potential candidates will be jointly evaluated by a committee consisting of The Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Vice Chair of the Pelican Bay Services Division, and the director /Manager of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Chairman of the CAC, the Vice Chair of the CAC and the Director of the CZM. This group will select and recommend the final candidate. 4. The final selection must be approved by both the Pelican Bay Services Division board and the CZM /CAC. The final candidate will also be approved by the BCC. On August 5, 2010, the CAC -Clam Bay Subcommittee made the following changes to the above July 29, 2010 - Rev 8 of the Peer Review Scope of Work (from Minutes of the Meeting) 6. Section Evaluation of Proposals - Page 3, item 4 — to read — "The final selection must be approved by both the Pelican Bay Services Division Board and the CZM /CAC, which with approval will not be unreasonably withheld. The final candidate will also be approved by the BCC. " However, Mr. McAlpin made the following changes to Rev 8 before presenting it the full CAC on August 12, 2010 as Rev 9. Recommendations are sought as follows: 161 x'819 1. Recommend to the BCC that the peer review process as authorized by the BCC on 1211512009 be modified to include a peer review of the October 2009 PBS &J technical report and a technical collaboration of the modeling program with the PB Foundation. 2. Reallocate funding from what was originally approved to provide for $4,500 for the PBSD Peer review and $25,000 for the technical collaboration of the modeling program with the PB Foundation. 3. Approve Revision 9 of the Peer Review scope of work with the PBSD. The latest revision to the PBSD peer review program is attached. August 5, 2010 - Rev 9 (Please see the last page in the background materials included for today's PBSD meeting.) 1.3—The Pelican Bay Services Division will perform their own independent evaluation and submit their three top candidates for discussion. Coastal Zone Management/CAC will do the same. The six potential candidates will be jointly evaluated by a committee consisting of The Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Vice Chair of the Pelican Bay Services Division, and the director /Manager of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Chairman of CAC, the Vice Chair of the CAC and the Director of the CZM. This group will select and recommend the final candidate. 1.4—The final selection must be approved by both the Pelican Bay Services Division board and the CZM /CAC, which approvals will not be unreasonably withheld. The final candidate will also be approved by the BCC. This sentence was changed to: "The final selection will be made by the BCC. ". I am unable to put a line through words. Therefore, it is presented this way. Please see Rev. 9 included in the background materials for today's meeting. The above Rev 9 was presented to the full CAC on August 12, 2010 for approval. My questions are: 1. Why did Mr. McAlpin insist on this language which was not made by PBSD or the CAC -Clam Bay Subcommittee on August 5, 2010? 2. If the final selection is to be made by the BCC, what is the reason for PBSD & CZM to spend so much time, effort, and money on this Joint Peer Review process? Is this exercise just for CZM to show the regulatory agencies that it has PB involment and support? Thank you for your kind attention. Sincerely, Linda Roth - 16F 619 September 1, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board jular Session 8a - Budget Committee Report - CIP - PBSD Self Financing CIP - PBSD Self Financing Ad Valorem Tax: Street Lights: Pelican Bay Blvd. & Gulf Park Drive $712,600 Neighborhoods 646,000 Entries 665,040 $2,023,640 Cost Over 10 years = $202,400 /year 2% Escalation on $1,000,000 Average = $20,000 /year $222,000 /average per year Current Assessment is $273,200 at the current millage rate of .0531 To raise additional $222,400 would require millage rate increase of .0433 New Millage Rate of .0964 for 10 years Example: Ad Valorem Tax on $500,000 assessed value now: .0531 X 500,000/1,000= $26.55 New Ad Valorem Tax for 10 years on $500,000 assessessed value: .0964 X 500,000/1,000 = $48.20 Non Ad Valorem Assessment: CIP Items (PBSD): Total Cost Less Street Lights Less Available Capital Funds (Estimate) Additional Funds Required Cost Over 10 years = $457,700 /year 2% Escalation on $2,300,000 Average = $46,000 /year Less future regular Capital Budget (Estimate) Addition Funds for 10 Years Current Non Ad Valorem Assessment = $370.63 Revised Non Ad Valorem Assessment - $423.66 (for 10 years) Additional Funds needed = 14% increase $9,100,000 (2,023,000) (2,500,000) $4,577,000 $504,000 /average per year (100,000) $404,000 /year Page 1 of 1 08/27/2010 at 9:15 AM 0 m n a N O N O N 1+ L 3 a kDD Oro V O) lrn A W N r O 16 I�.jIt" B19 ID CO V (n In A W N r 0 o O O O o 0 o O O 0 0 0 0 co co \ \ \ W \ W O O \ V \ V V V v 0 A 0 A O V O N W O 0 O ;Et w w w w IM - r \ r \ r \ r \ r \ O \ r \ r \ r O O O O \ O \ O O \ \ O m O O co O O O O ID W tD O 1D tD kD O w H< v n W 0 m O- p p z (D n j v m m m m m ( O O m C M. < < ( O i o 2. m O .r d m - ' m� m 7o o W W W < ° m O nS. vi Dq W n O m n W O ° M 3 m n W pr W m 7 < G O C W O W C W m .S. c w o o° p a fro " W 3° < ° 'm z ° ° O H Ow m pp W G W W O m V V O_ m N r? z W O C W = "* d K s ?, < n O c DD m o ° rj rD 0 3 f UQ em-f is N m l0i .< n W N < S2 0 ° O O ro' N On - 3 d w > K O 0 m n ¢D < W W (D ° O 3 0 o 7 O W N N W C S. f S T Q 7 - 7 W n '< O 0 7 S m DO W O T O C a o. ° � ° o °- ° o Qu a o N RD v d °: 0 w C) ID G) ° No c n 3 W x m a z 7c z z z z z z z r r O W W •* V O 3\ p\ O\ fD—r .°.� W n p m r r O X N N n In A O m \ W W\ z �D.o 7c n W r W \ N G) �^ r N °;\� X m a r m O W n\ W .N* AAA -• 1 rD A o u, 'o O co ro o < V r m z 0 $ n v <,� \\ D N rn rn m r A V(n 3 ?• 7 z A 7c Z -v W\D°, ID 0 0 0 N c -° \ W O n m o W v, N\ No, ID \ w c M 3 n < 7c m _ D O W aQ K 7+ m 7 m O CL < lJl \ N O \ O O `D 3 m 3 m N CO A m ,. O V;. Q d !�D m 7 O W m .�• `D rD n W 7 l00 L W <mm n a 0 ° a - <.� ° m n G N C) ° fN j -0 v° 33 - 3 o 0 V N N \Dn .xr n 0 CL 3 W a O 3 oro ° (D ° X m °- 7 n• Q m n N O 0 o n�nno W m N N On n< N _ C 0= O 0. ro0 'O �' (D• n C- H- O On K O m m ti. °' ° C O W n 3 O Vi o N W °' yr 30 O -O 0 S ti O n, W y b N ■' O 0 O0 z m fSD 4" m W rD n O d 0 W N rD C n Gl ,�, j W N C a rD O- O ° rt m p_ < �: 7 n ry C d ° L W O ° O N a N (1 m 7 rn m a 5. ,y \ m a 0 -° <WS�r N go O W N 3°Sm O coc n� v0i r� o' N= ° r z W o < <iom �. m a O' n3 on O m n 7 •,°p x (MD m W��ka03'om 0 < D ar 7 n <' N a 0 (D m fl. m y 3 ,.. d n o m 3 m O H n n m 0 7c_ m S :. 'o p o a W m a m° C ° z d m ° w a a n A 0 O a m a _. o W a m �^ m o W u, ° >r n N x° ° m 0 CL -• m (n c iD 3 m m x- m CL (1 W ID L m 7 D! = .+ W d W \ O Ip G5 = A N 7 a N • 7 a n N m n C �, n iz° ° DD °- .fir rD 1n a• a W° 'D N . m ID W 7 rn n d= O N S (' m< 7 W 0. UQ m S F 0 m Q 0 3 m • m 0 W .m fD _w O1 7 O N I rr 0 O 00 M, W O m a A m S p 'O M N m N ° 0 A 7 n O N 3 W C v 3 W 3 m 7 - H m n 0 - Q m K° r rnr 2, W m Cn T rD ' m - fj in m_ O C (D •° O W O _ 7 7 d m ? Q W d W\ m w 3 K o H 0 v c < o �' < a' c a 3 rzD o m 'm n RD IZ rD ° m n 3 C T m .•r o r m rD m of S o r°D ° N o N Nm 3 W •° 6? .r ri d W° . ° :3 O 7 n •° S 7 7 _ d Or n, m W W G ° 7 O A m N ri C7 ° O N to W O n (D m ° N W N N 7 rD C m 0 W m (D W C r .+ m\ K n On N - n O < S W r' 0 W a N C Z rn rn O. 7 D N fi •O rn 1<n m W O C T C W \ m r ° 7 ° f'D "y' rp m DG n 0 0 .r a 0 n C 7 0 aoo a Wy C an d C 3 m° D a <.° rD a W N> =° nTO. 0 C ° d 0 003 .O O m n O -" CL N 7 K 7 W fD °: j '00 m c o m O O. vi x? ° .ter v0i < A r^ < <, M m vi \ O K m a °' 7D O 3 fD c ° > o < ,� r r V (M - N (D r^ a X ••° o T. < n. fD m m 01 C n O m 3 �o n o °• o < a ° < �w ° Ili- z E N m a '� n o > m v n o� M- O M' ,� °< c -rti c c a -n 'o v �. ° N w °.'. rm^. d 3, �<-,• • m 3 -°° 0 W 3 •* 3 o w p 0 n v 'n' m m 3 `<D a? °�' < L m m mw w o o < m m 3 0 0 n j o m n 0 g n o W o, 3 N < �' m 3 ° m =a 3 ° o m r n L 0 m m m O 3 =. 90 = z c G) c o m n v `�° o w v o n T 3 o n p W mr m r o m< 3 m < 3 a °—' m - a n D m 3 v° o n n iD n n >> v 0 a G1 o m o° m ? m 0 a m 0 (^D x a° M o m n D m G a m D'Y 3 c o - 0 o w -o < m 4. n 3 o W '� m ° S o a ri rD m 3 W 0 0 1 n n 'O m o° a, 0 0 ° n o ?. ° v 3 c n,. o .', m m m 3 ° O o 0 w n Q .° m 3 W w ° d fro m< .^, a N 0. ? < 3. oW 01 m ° < N < O 0 n d = _ °_- ry O N (D .^, m m m 0 o = m 3 o °° n 3 n v W o o Do _T =\ N RD m y n 0° W ^. n a N v o ° c a 0 0 n ,-r W ° o �". 3 < m a ° 3 N ° ° o m 0 n 0 c m Q° 3 c 0 i+ W \ W (° In m m 0 3 ° d r ° CO ° 0 `° m c n K o ° W m ° m _ ao 0 3 ° ° 3 m c ° ° n ID ° Da) ocp7nCL �3 rD Er 'r! a m CO trio �.� m n 1� o,N K n p a D ('? 3• W m m ((DD m n v m 3• O p (? D Q 0 a n S w m o W D°o D M (n N m •O (D o d C ° 3 0 0 o 0 m T S 7 W °. N - W o a r� n 3 m � In d m .0 d m C 00 O " o m o A < m (D ro RD M. rao a a 3 U. a o n m G) O, Di 3 0 m 3 o 3 m 3 n n 0 3 s W aD 0 m °° 3 n o W D' CL a< m v ° m ° m ° ° 3 W° O O Q m 0 •0 3 o c 3 ^ a j !n m O r^ n 0� o— a c m 3° c m 'p v�', a• o W m O .°. p W a- - 3 T m° r or 1j to O n p W 0 m d < < N m\ m n S < 7 -w 7 O ti' v0i DO N n ti. ry � nr < m Vl \ W- W r C j W d d 3 m p W 3 C G -\ 3 � r-r N ° A ° W 0 3 w v o d� w t\!t :D Q a o° n m^ m R° o ' m 3 a a a O 7 0 '° (°- d d �n \ °' y yr n o m= m o 7 m 'n r � r, Da ° W n 0 fD N W o m rn N c m d in o a < d f"'' N' ` n m n 0 .na °� 51 1<n ° N N N W 0 0 CL a p a W \ 7 C j 7 (1 W W < m° m m m 1n 0 n. (1 0 m d n 3 T W A 3 ° a w \� a n n m CD 0 ,0+ '0 m m m O Q m �' m c m m a to ,n* rD ? W v o RD n n '° o W W 3 O° m 3 O < ° f n o m 0 o m 0 N 3 M W CL m N o m m °- 3 .. \ O C •m0 '"' c< 0 W rD c 0- 7 °< W '< 3 �. M. A - A °- n m, 3» m 4. ° O W -00 •`- N m n. O" vl -0 d D ° a n ci N °� 0 o '^, N 0 ° m 7 N c, N m (D 0 d 0 o 2 m W= co i 3 _ d ° ° 0 m Q ° v ° m °° N (D ° ° N CL W '6 W v o p n n 3 ° A a \ m n r'D (D < to sl W f m d o< ° rD C Z5 �r CL D N v a 3 w 3" <D 3 ° > > ^' v (<D ° °. ° f v 7 ° a n m W < F o o° A° W O o D o m< S m < ro m X fD 3 D° ° z D °� < m n n W z° c �° o n a° v m c -° m as a o o 3 .. m m °,D o sv >r m o CL v ° < n O. 0a m = W O 2 M N 3 N r: Q< p_ O. ax O (D A C m o Q N S �' rD N fi 7 m d m W r3-,' •mp rp W O Da W W n W a\ o j n 7 5. 0 < 3 N S. m 3 �' r�r A 0 N '°•r A n;+ ? "7" W > N h\+ N N m D CL H d j a 7 ° 0 0 7 N O ° Q fS W W 0 m m M (°D m p _' v0 n - 7C m m f1 3 O In W 0 T a 7 S W a W < m UQ & m �. - • (mD O. fD O < v 0 m 0 N CL ° rn 7 CD < .my. N 0 N a. p_ N N <O W rD M o d d W Z d K oG c N Q 0 r o d N m °' O1 \ W W ° O n 3 W G1 ° N n O p a N m m °. 3 O O 0 0 m m 3 F, o W° c °' u, �+ ° 0- o°u -° c w x o �' o °o Q s 'o_ °<. z < ID n' a 0o m e m K n N � a n< d O m �• d a o 'W+, '� n N W 0(D < m v 7c m W 0 z 0 m an d -9 0 a W O 7 `< Q a o O c m n < p a H fD m 7< W O o(D z a .r l S m ° :? m 0 Q m c 3 m re W d 3 c 7 O ;n a a S 0 H m O m m N d CL m W 3 7 7 7 7 E j n O n n n n n n n _n n n n n n v o v 'o 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 ° g 00 0 0 0 a a a a R a_ N N N N N N N N N N N m m n m m a m a m m a m a m m Q m m n m m a m m a M m a m m n m m a K m n. m M A� W O WQ //yy am��• MQ I 0. m A rF N rh i N m O pal 1 � t 1B ECEIVED SEP o 7 2010 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Board of County Commissioners Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN SPECIAL SESSION, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES. Fiala AGENDA Halas Henning Coyle The agenda includes, but is not limited: Coletta I..L 1. Roll Call 2. Audience Participation 3. Community Improvement Plan Priorities and Funding Methods Discussion 4. Audience Comments 5. 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 #:_Jq/u11n,n Copies to: 1611, B19 UPDATED ANALYSIS OF WILSON/MILLER FINAL REPORT September 2, 2010 This is a short synopsis and current status of the final report by WilsonMiller consulting firm of Naples. 1. Traffic. The following four premises will solve many problems without new costly and troublesome designs: A. No brick pavers on public roads, at crosswalks, or other heavy traffic areas. This kind of surface is expensive, requires frequent cleaning and is more difficult to maintain than asphalt or concrete. Use high visibility thermoplastic paint striping where needed at stop signs and crosswalks. STATUS: GENERALLY NOT PLANNED, EXCEPT FOR PAVERS AT SOME CROSSWALKS. B. No roundabouts. These road designs are dangerous in mixed traffic and are banned in some states and cities. Roundabout approaches and center islands require more space than simple 3 or 4 -way intersections with stop signs. STATUS: NONE PLANNED. C. No bike lanes. The four -lane roads (Pelican Bay Blvd and Gulf Park Drive) cannot be widened from the present 24 ft (12 +12) in each direction without costly rework affecting the trees and landscaping in the medians and along the street sides. Every few years the issue of adding a bike lane (4 ft or more) is raised. About 15 years ago some sections of the collector roads had been striped to accommodate a bike lane (10 +10 +4) on a test basis. This effort was soon abandoned as unsafe due to the false sense of security by the bikers. Our community is served daily by heavy trucks approaching 10 ft in width (trash collection, ambulances, fire trucks, construction vehicles, landscape services, furniture deliveries, auto transporters, etc). The national road vehicle width limit for trucks and buses is 8.5 ft with an added allowance of 0.5 ft on each side for mirrors and other safety devices; a 10 ft lane for large cars, trucks, trailers and buses is marginal at best. On this issue the flawed Kimley -Horn report of June 2007 and the current proposal by W/M are unacceptable. STATUS: NONE PLANNED. D. No traffic lip—ht signals inside the Pelican Bay boundaries (other than at the existing five controlled entry points). STATUS: NONE PLANNED. Crosswalks. Some changes and additions are justified but not necessarily at the locations and of the type indicated in the report. The monstrosity erected across the Boulevard at the North Tram Station consisting of a dozen ugly yellow signs (with some positioned in the traffic lanes!) should be dismantled and never duplicated elsewhere. Remove the "state law" signs, including those on Daniels Blvd. Consistency is important but excessive signage must be avoided. Plans for fourteen crosswalks are shown. Do not create more crosswalks near any existing or proposed crossings (do not add #4 #5 and #9). Upgrade crosswalks only where there is a known volume of pedestrian traffic to the tram stations or community facilities (leave as is #3, #7, #8, #12 and #13). No pedestrian crossing signs are needed in places where vehicle stop signs exist (only striped walk lanes at #2, #6, and #14). Stop signs on the Boulevard at Ridgewood ( #l) should be considered. Crossings #10 and #I 1 are needed but without redundant signs and stop bars. The entire upgrade plan as suggested, including minor repair of pathway ramps at crosswalks, could be done for under $100,000 if brick pavers are not used. STATUS: CROSSINGS 4, 5, 9 ARE FUNDED INCLUDING BRICK PAVERS. Page 1 of 4 rti ` 1611 2. Pathways. The following four basic guidelines apply as in the preceding Traffic section: A. Choose asphaltic surfaces whenever practical for workability and general consistency. This material is almost universal throughout the Pelican Bay pathways. Do not rely on any solid "pervious" paving materials. Install tree root barriers as needed when resurfacing or widening pathways. B. No light bollards on main roads. Sufficient illumination exists at night if the maturing trees are properly pruned so there should be no need for enhanced lighting. Use these devices along the isolated pathways off the named streets. C. Be judicious when widening paths to avoid disrupting underground utilities. When selecting segments to be upgraded consider the multitude of electric, telephone, cable, gas, water, irrigation, sewage and private conduits usually buried in these strips. D. Dispense with gimmicks, such as direction signs, mile markers, named jogging loops, overlook stations, and covered benches. We already have too many vacant benches along the Boulevard. The most densely populated area of the community from the Commons to the North Tram Station would likely benefit from widening the pathway to about 7 -8 ft on the west side of the Boulevard. Reworking this pathway segment would require grading and leveling some sections in conformance to the ADA rules. Be cautious when embarking on this project because the bureaucrats may make it impossible or, at best, very expensive. This disruptive undertaking would require much manual labor. Upgrading St. Raphael Beachwalk path is desirable but the estimated total cost of $200,000 seems high. The estimate for Boulevard crossing #10 is reasonable at $23,000 but the balance to complete this plan is not realistic. The asphalt path (10 ft wide x 700 ft long) already exists and only requires refurbishment by milling and overlay. Some adjoining trees need to be removed or trimmed. This overgrown path is invisible from the street and a small sign would help. Do not plant any more trees along this path or erect benches. The entire package, including the street crossing, resurfacing and lights, should cost no more than $90,000. Pathway repair and overlay should be the first option wherever possible to avoid ADA issues and disturbing the underground utilities. Survey the neighborhoods where there are no sidewalks whether there is a genuine desire by the home owners to accept this imposition near their property. Avoid fixing some private entrance /exit cases which may not be optimum but often exist for reasons not evident to the consultants. STATUS: BEACHWALK PATH IS FUNDED BUT COST SEEMS HIGH. NO OTHER PATHWAYS WORK PLANNED. 3. Lighting. The report shows a large number of "major conflicts with tree canopies ". Too many trees had been planted during the initial planning phase over 30 years ago and many more had been added as the development progressed. Pelican Bay needs judicious thinning of all types of mature greenery including the removal of some canopy trees and palms. Mother Nature will solve it in a more drastic way if we do not address this problem with sensible planning. Many lighting issues on the main roads would benefit from professional trimming or removal of overgrown trees and perhaps by relocating a few street lights. Undoubtedly LED lamps are more efficient and last longer than existing MH/HID types. However, there is no economic basis to spend more than a million dollars now for new LED fixtures and bracket arms to be mounted on old concrete poles and then retrofit them a few years hence on new better looking poles. Establish the remaining useful life of the concrete poles (7 -8 years ?), budget an appropriate annual reserve amount for the replacement project and then implement it complete with all the bells, whistles and LEDs. STATUS: BEACHWALK LIGHTING IS FUNDED. OTHER PROJECTS NOT CONSIDERED. Page 2 of 4 N' t 1611 4. Landscape. Removal and replacement of some aging palms and canopy trees is needed as part of normal maintenance. Avoid overplanting and use better quality (such as royal vs. sabal palms). Do not replace sod in median nosings, or anywhere, with "low drought tolerant ground covers ". We already see some ugly examples of these plantings in a few areas. Do not plant 125 new trees shown in the report. No littoral type plantings along the berm and be selective about applying them at the edge of lakes and canals. STATUS: NO MAJOR LANDSCAPE CHANGES FUNDED. 5. US -41 Berm. Traffic noise in the area near U.S. Route 41 is unavoidable and cannot be realistically suppressed. The report does not recognize that it was and remains a major link through SW Florida. Even 40 years ago US -41 carried much traffic and had its share of congestion and accidents. Spending $2 million dollars for tearing out the present landscaping and any existing walls, building up the earth berm by 2 -3 ft and erecting a 6 -8 ft wall on top of it would be wasteful. Traffic noise is not attenuated by such minimal barriers except in the very small areas immediately behind the wall. There is no assurance for any perceptible benefit at the residences beyond 200 ft from the road. The low frequency sound tends to carry over minor obstacles. Installing water fountains in the adjacent ponds would just create more noise in their immediate vicinity thus presumably "masking" the more variable sound of traffic. These comments on noise abatement also apply to the 12 ft wall suggested between Naples Grande and Serendipity. No great results should be expected from the disruption of existing hedge and $62,700 expenditure. STATUS: NO PLANS TO FUND THESE OPTIONS. 6. Community Berm. Strong opposition by the residents was seen in 2002 -2003 when a small section of the berm had been "beautified" at the North Station. Do not plant anything on the berm. Plantings and trees will obscure the natural life along the berm. Additional costly irrigation and upkeep will be needed. Birds and animals will no longer be visible. Movement of fish, turtles, alligators and wading birds is not predictable and varies with seasons and tides. Swamps may not be pretty but they are part of the coastal environment. Save $160,000 by not planting any trees, palms or shrubs on the berm and by not erecting useless overlook platforms cantilevered off the berm or seating areas on it. Widening of the 10 ft berm road is not necessary but resurfacing at a cost of $406,000 is needed. This work should be done in planned stages during the summer to minimize its impact on the residents. The engineering survey indicates that the berm structure is generally sound with the exception of a few areas where some settlement is evident. These areas would have to be addressed by excavating, filling and compacting before application of the asphaltic pavement. There is no reason to dredge the swale on the west side of the berm as long as the water drainage is not impeded. Avoid any work on the preserve side, other than trimming of encroaching growth, which would require permits from the State or Federal authorities. Do not under any circumstances install night lighting on the berm. Require property owners to clean up areas along the east side of the berm. STATUS: REPAIR OF BERM SRUCTURE AND ROAD TO BE FUNDED FROM THE FOUNDATION'S RESERVE FUND. 7. Tram Stations. Identify stations by the physical location to assist the riders: I -South End, 2 -St Maarten, 3 -South Beach, 4- Commons, 5- Sandpiper, 6 -St Raphael, 7 -North Beach, 8 -North Station. Carefully evaluate the $900,000 revamping of the entire Commons complex which includes Tram Station No.4 (this work should be coordinated with the need to shift some of the administrative functions to other locations in Pelican Bay to alleviate congestion and parking problems). The North Station has been recently updated and does not require another $180,000 update. The parking lot has been poorly constructed with inadequate pitch for drainage. The Sand Piper station needs an overhaul, including a new roof, but none of the plantings on the adjoining berm. Do not install tables, electronic bulletin screens or tram tracking. Tram users are interested in transport to the beaches, bars and restaurants and not about lounging at the stations to socialize. STATUS: FUNDING PROVIDED FOR OVERHAUL OF COMMONS PLAZA AND SANDPIPER STATION. Page 3 of 4 161 It.., S19' 8. Signage. We have too many signs in and around the community. Remove the old wooden sign at North PointeNanderbilt Beach and do not replace it. Do not add signs listed at secondary entries and within the community. Total savings will add up to over $200,000. Replace three wooden signs at key locations along the Boulevard (Commons, Sandpiper and North Station) with signs to match the design of entry to our new Community Center. Refurbish but do not replace the current three main entry signs on Tamiami Trail. The NE and SE corner signs at US -41 need cleanup and removal of obstructing_palms, especially at Seagate Drive. STATUS: NO ACTION, OTHER THAN MAINTENANCE, PLANNED AT THIS TIME. 9. Parks. Ridgewood and Oakmont parks are very lightly used and poorly maintained. Many residents outside of the immediate vicinity do not even know these amenities exist. Ridgewood has five gravel parking spaces and Oakmont is basically only a narrow track around one of the lakes with access only by foot or bicycle. Undoubtedly some improvements could be implemented and the upkeep of overgrown pathways and vegetation is a must. However, it is unlikely that these areas can become some sort of a social center even after expending several hundred thousand dollars as suggested in the report. STATUS: NO ACTION OTHER THAN REGULAR MAINTENANCE AND ADDING SOME NEW EXERCISE FACILITIES. 10. New Technologies. This is a somewhat nebulous section because the cost effectiveness and capability of new devices is changing rapidly. Some suggested innovations are already covered in previous chapters while others fall in the category of "don't implement even if it is feasible ". Solar LED lights have been proven useful in a few remote applications but large scale solar sources are unreliable and costly in providing bulk power. Given the almost continuous presence of people at key locations and the ubiquitous use of cell phones there is no need of disguised towers with "code blue" emergency call stations and video camera surveillance. Pelican Bay is well equipped with private guard services, cameras and security systems. Review of County Sheriffs records over the past two years shows minimal criminal activity and traffic violations spread pretty evenly throughout the community. There is no indication that the areas near US -41 are more prone to burglary or personal attack. A well planned network of a few card swiping stations may help to keep out unauthorized persons and provide statistics of attendance. The idea of installing a gate with a card reader at the entry to Ridgewood Park's five car parking lot is not practical. STATUS: NO ACTION PROPOSED AT THIS TIME. 11. Public Art. The idea about limiting this program to voluntary private contributions has merit. STATUS: NO ACTION AT THIS TIME. VAS Page 4 of 4 From: Keith Dallas To: ResnmckL Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: Fwd: Pathway approaches to include ADA compliant ramp systems Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 10:41:58 AM Begin forwarded message: From: lukasz_k < KyleLukasz@colliergov. net> Date: August 25, 2010 3:18:50 PM EDT To: Keith Dallas < keithdallas@comcast. net> Subject: RE: Pathway approaches to include ADA compliant ramp systems Mr. Dallas, The answer on whether D2 -A (ADA Ramp Improvements) were included in the DI-D (Crosswalk Improvements) and the D2 -C (Sidewalk Widening) is that these costs are included and don't need to be added for any ramp improvements addressed as part of that specific work. However, if the intent was to make a certain length of roadway ADA compliant you would need to add any driveway /roadway intersections not specifically addressed as part of the pathway widening or crosswalks improvements. For instance if the west side pathway from the Commons to the North Tram Station was widened and the crosswalk improvements made in that area the addition of the X number of pathway ADA Ramp Improvements required for the east side pathway may be considered to cover that length of roadway. I counted approximately 21 approach pairs along Pelican Bay Blvd. that wouldn't be addressed as part of the pathway widening or crosswalk improvements. The opinion of cost for ADA Ramp Improvements is to address those additional improvements that may be considered. This is kind of a condensed version of an email Kevin Mangan had sent me and after speaking to him on the phone. I'll forward his email for your information. If you have any question please give me a call to discuss, 597 -2265 or 438 -5239. Kyle From: Keith Dallas fmaiito:keithdallas(�i)comcact net] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 4:38 PM To: lukasz_k Cc: ResnickL; Neil Dorrill Subject: Pathway approaches to include ADA compliant ramp systems Kyle, I have been looking at some of the Wilson Miller materials as they relate to item D2 -A1 Re: Pathway approaches to include ADA compliant ramp systems. I am confused when this must be done, and whose responsibility it is when it involves private roads and driveways. I'd like you to think about this and be able to help us through our thought process at our September 2nd special session to discus CIP priorities. Specifically: * I under stand that when we change something, like put in a crosswalk, we must make it ADA compliant. This further suggests that we use mud set clay brick paver to led up to the street etc. That is an aesthetic. * Item I refers to 12 ramps at intersections on Gulf Park, Pelican Bay and secondary streets. It seems to me most of those intersections are probably going to have new Brick paver crosswalks, so is this counting something twice. I assumed the crosswalk fees include finishing the approaches etc. Is this 1641 B1 true? * To the extent we replace the pathway on the west side of Pelican Bay with a new 8 foot path, say from The Commons to Bay Colony, we obviously have to make any ramps ADA compliant. Do our "pathway" estimates include that, or is this cost needed to finish the job? * They mention 23 additional private roads and driveways along the west side of Pelican Bay. To the extent we do a new pathway, we must comply with ADA. But who traditionally paid for the private roads & driveways? Also don't we have a choice as to materials. For instance at the Montenero, our main driveway uses cement for the ramp to the brick driveway and looks just fine. The service driveway is blacktop, and again uses cement that is just fine. So to the extent we widen the path, are we responsible for the ramps? Can we make them cement if we prefer? * To the extent we don't redo the paths or the crosswalks, is there any legal reason to do ramps? (I recognize there may be instances bad enough that we may decide to do something). I hope this wasn't too confusing. On the 2nd I want a discussion of these ramps, and where and how we should do them. Thus I think these responsibility questions and questions as to what is included in various quotes will come up. Your help to sort out some of the details will be appreciated. Thanks. Keith 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. From: jpcbac @comcast.net Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 1:41 AM To: Resnickl- Subject: Planned CIP Executive Summary Lisa, Please forward the following as a one way communication to the Board: Concerning the planned Executive Summary of the CIP to be published in the PB Post, I recommend that we let the readers know that the total of all projects that the PBSD Board will be considering is $9.1 million and that, if all were approved, the total tax per residential unit would be roughly $1,000 to be paid over five to ten years. I suggest that we avoid getting into a discussion of splitting the financing between ad valorem and non ad valorem taxes. I would show the calculation of the "roughly $1,000" figure as follows: Current estimated cost of all projects $9,100,000 Less: Currently available capital funds (2,500,000) Sub Total $6,600,000 Inflation (2% x $3,300,000 x 10 years) 660,000 Sub Total $7,260,000 Divided by equivalent residential units 7,600 Total tax per residential unit $955 Increase in annual tax if spread over five years $191 increase in annual tax if spread over ten years $96 John Chandler PS -The 7,600 equivalent residential unit figure is from my memory. Being in San Diego, I don't have access to my budget file. 1 of 1 8/30/2010 1:09 PM by LR Sepk47ber 2, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session 16 rr Analysis by VA. Sufwlelis of VAson Miller Community Improvement Plan Final Report From: John Iaizzo To: ResnickL Subject~ FW: Analysis of WilsonMiNer QP Final Report Date: Monday, August 30, 2010 1:17:28 PM Attachments: Memo to PBF about WilsonMiller report 7010072 doo( - - - - - -- Original Message- - - - - -- From: VASUZIEDEUS@cs.com Date: 08 /27/10 19:11:07 To: iaizzo@comcast.net Subject: Analysis of WilsonMiller QP Final Report John, Attached is our four page analysis of the 400 page W/M report (containing 57 recommendations and multiple options). I assume that you have a hard copy of the W/M document because reading it from the Foundation's wpb site is not a simple exercise. I wound up downloading most sections of the report and read the remainder, including another 200 pages of the Appendix at the Foundation office. Should you have any questions or comments please give me a call at 591 -8177 or by e-mail to vasuziedeiis@cs.com. Regards, Vito �. M. . • - . , . -�•:. . • Page 1 of 5 1611 B19 -Wo, September 2, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Analysis by V.A. Suziedelis of Wilson Miller Community Improvement Plan Final Report ANALYSIS OF WILSON/MILLER FINAL REPORT July 26, 2010 TO: Jim Hoppensteadt, President — Pelican Bay Foundation FROM: Vito Suziedelis, President — St. Laurent Condominium SUBJECT: Community Improvement Plan (CIP) This is a four page addendum to my letter of July 6 2010 about the project elements identified in the 400 page final report by WilsonMiller consulting firm of Naples. As I had mentioned in my letter the report is poorly written and organized. I doubt that many residents will comment on this bulky product in which the numbering of pages in the digital download is inconsistent with the printed material. I reviewed the "bullet points" of the reported summaries in the order listed using the page references from the web site. My simple grading score ( "Y" =yes; "N " =no /never; "M "= maybe /marginal; "P "= platitude) and recommendations follow: 1. Traffic. Analysis page 11, 10 items (M,N,Y,Y,N,N,Y,Y,P,N). Start with four key premises which may help to solve many problems without new costly and troublesome designs: A. No brick pavers on public roads, at crosswalks, or other heavy traffic areas. This kind of surface is expensive, requires frequent cleaning and is more difficult to maintain than asphalt or concrete. Use high visibility thermoplastic paint striping where needed at stop signs and crosswalks. B. No roundabouts. These relics from the 1950 -60's are dangerous in mixed traffic and are rightly banned in some states and cities. Roundabout approaches and center islands require more space than simple 3 or 4 -way intersections with stop signs. C. No bike lanes. The four -lane "collector" roads (Pelican Bay Blvd and Gulf Park Drive) cannot be widened from the present 24 ft (12 +12) in each direction without costly rework affecting the trees and landscaping in the medians and along the street sides. Every few years the issue of adding a bike lane (4 ft or more) is raised by a few bureaucrats and bicycle club members. About 15 years ago some sections of the collector roads had been striped to accommodate a bike lane (10 +10 +4) on a test basis. This effort was soon abandoned as unsafe due to the false sense of security by the bikers. Our community is served daily by heavy trucks approaching 10 ft in width (trash collection, ambulances, fire trucks, construction vehicles, landscape services, furniture deliveries, auto transporters, etc). The national road vehicle width limit for trucks and buses is 8.5 ft with an added allowance of 0.5 ft on each side for mirrors and other safety devices; a 10 ft lane for large cars, trucks, trailers and buses is marginal at best. On this issue the flawed Kimley -Horn report of June 2007 and the current proposal by W/M are unacceptable. The Foundation also is not doing any favors to its members by publishing a politically slanted and technically weak article by Michelle Avola in the mid - May 2010 issue of Pelican Bay Post. Please be guided by the provisions of Florida Statutes Section 335.065 Chapter 8.1. Ub) and lighten the W/M report by dumping 20 pages of filler material (pages 370 -389). D. No traffic light signals inside the Pelican Bay boundaries (other than at the existing five controlled entry points). Crosswalks. Some changes and additions may be justified but not necessarily at the locations and of the type indicated in the report. The monstrosity erected across the Boulevard at the North Tram Station consisting of a dozen ugly yellow signs (with some positioned in the traffic lanes!) should be dismantled and never duplicated elsewhere. We heard many negative. comments, such as "overkill ", "driver distraction ", "unsafe for everyone ", "first of a kind on a public street in Naples ". Remove the "state law" signs, including those on Daniels Blvd. Consistency is important but excessive signage must be avoided. Plans for fourteen crosswalks are shown on pages 58 -91. Do not create more crosswalks near any existing or proposed crossings (do not add #4, #5 and #9). Upgrade crosswalks only where there is a known volume of pedestrian traffic to the tram stations or community facilities (leave as is #3, #7, #8, #12 and #13). No pedestrian crossing signs are needed in places where vehicle stop signs exist (only striped walk lanes at #2, #6, and #14). Reluctantly, stop signs on the Boulevard at Ridgewood (# 1) may be justified. Crossings # 10 and # 11 are needed but without redundant signs and stop bars. The entire upgrade plan as modified, including minor repair of pathway ramps at crosswalks, could be done for under $100,000. Page 2 of 5 September 2, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session 6 "1 Q17 9 19 Analysis by V.A. Suziedelis of Wilson Miller Community Improvement Plan Final Report 2. Pathways. Analysis pages 12 -13, 12 items (Y,Y,M,N,N,M,N,P,Y,M,Y,Y). Start with four basic guidelines as in the preceding Traffic section: A. Choose asphaltic surfaces whenever practical for workability and general consistency. This material is almost universal throughout the Pelican Bay pathways. Do not rely on any solid "pervious" paving materials. Install tree root barriers as needed when resurfacing or widening pathways. B. No light bollards on main roads. Sufficient illumination exists at night if the maturing trees are properly pruned so there should be no need for enhanced lighting. Use these devices along the isolated pathways off the named streets. C. Be iudicious when widening paths to avoid disrupting underground utilities. When selecting segments to be upgraded consider the multitude of electric, telephone, cable, gas, water, irrigation, sewage and private conduits usually buried in these strips. D. Dispense with gimmicks, such as direction signs, mile markers, named jogging loops, overlook stations, and covered benches. We already have too many vacant benches along the Boulevard. The most densely populated area of the community from the Commons to the North Tram Station would likely benefit from widening the pathway to about 7 -8 ft on the west side of the Boulevard. Reworking this pathway segment would require grading and leveling some sections in conformance to the ADA rules. Be cautious when embarking on this project because the bureaucrats may make it impossible or, at best, very expensive. This disruptive undertaking would require much manual labor and could double any original cost estimate and triple the planned work duration. Think of it as Immokalee Road widening in North Naples on a miniature scale. Upgrading St. Raphael Beachwalk path is desirable but the estimated total cost of $200,000 seems high. The estimate for Boulevard crossing #10 is reasonable at $23,000 but the balance to complete this plan is not realistic. The asphalt path (10 ft wide x 700 ft long) already exists and only requires refurbishment by milling and overlay. Some adjoining trees need to be removed or trimmed. This overgrown path is invisible from the street and a small sign would help. Do not plant any more trees along this path or erect benches. Standard bollard lighting may be appropriate but forget the solar type in this shady place. The entire package, including the street crossing, resurfacing and lights, should cost no more than $90,000. Pathway repair and overlay should be the first option wherever possible to avoid ADA issues and disturbing the underground utilities. Survey the neighborhoods where there are no sidewalks whether there is a genuine desire by the home owners to accept this imposition near their property. Avoid fixing some private entrance /exit cases which may not be optimum but often exist for reasons not evident to the fly -by consultants (for example, two photos of Waterpark Place gates on page 126). 3. Lighting. Analysis page 14, 10 items (M,M,M,M,Y,Y,Y,Y,M,P). Start with pages 12 -13 of the original report (not included in the final version) which show a large number of "major conflicts with tree canopies ". Too many trees had been planted during the initial planning phase over 30 years ago and many more had been added as the development progressed. Pelican Bay needs judicious thinning of all types of mature greenery including the removal of some canopy trees and palms. Mother Nature will solve it in a more drastic way if we do not address this problem with sensible planning (remember Port Royal five years ago). Many lighting issues on the main roads would benefit from professional trimming or removal of overgrown trees and perhaps by relocating a few street lights. More illumination is needed at North Station crosswalk. The convoluted SESCO "Energy Solution" is a worthless canned computer exercise that does not even connect with the rest of the cost analysis (disregard this filler material on pages146 -169). Undoubtedly the LED lamps are more efficient and last longer than existing MH/HID types. However, there is no economic basis to spend more than a million dollars now for new LED fixtures and bracket arms to be mounted on old concrete poles and then retrofit them a few years hence on new better looking poles. Establish the remaining useful life of the concrete poles (7 -8 years ?), budget an appropriate annual reserve amount for the replacement project and then implement it complete with all the bells, whistles and LEDs. Isn't that how we manage our condo associations? There is little, if any, need to install expensive ground light bollards, especially not on North Pointe Drive or along Vanderbilt Beach Road. As stated previously, about a dozen bollards (50 ft apart) may be justifiable for the upgraded St. Raphael Beachwalk. Page 3 of 5 September 2, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special S ioon 19 Analysis by V.A. Suziedelis of Wilson Miller Community Improvement Plan Final Report 4. Landscape. Analysis page 15, 15 items ( M,N,M,Y,N,P,P,M,M,M,M,M,P,P,M). Some of the landscape changes listed on pages 185 -186 are reasonable but the overall scheme with a price tag of $2.5 million is ridiculous. Removal and replacement of some aging palms and canopy trees is needed as stated in paragraph D4 -A. Apply the general rule "one in for two out" to equivalent items, avoid overplanting and use better quality (such as royal vs. sabal palms). Do not replace sod in median nosings, or anywhere, with "low drought tolerant ground covers ". We already see some ugly examples of these plantings in a few areas. Do not touch the costly upgrade item D4 -B and the planting of 125 new trees in item D4 -D. No littoral type plantings along the berm and be selective about applying them at the edge of lakes and canals (item D4 -C). 5. US -41 Berm. Analysis page 16, 8 items (N,N,N,N,N,N,P,P). Traffic noise in the area near U.S. Route 41 is unavoidable and cannot be realistically suppressed. The rationale that this main road appeared surprisingly in its present location does not recognize that it was and remains a major link through SW Florida. I worked in Tampa more than 40 years ago and often traveled the Tamiami Trail before the existence of Pelican Bay, Marco Island and Alligator Alley. This highway was never just a quiet two -lane country road. US -41 at times carried a lot of commercial traffic and had its share of congestion and accidents. Spending $2 million dollars for tearing out the present landscaping and any existing walls, building up the earth berm by 2 -3 ft and erecting a 6 -8 ft wall on top of it would be wasteful. Traffic noise is not attenuated by such minimal barriers except in the very small areas immediately behind the wall. There is no assurance that there would be any perceptible benefit at the residences beyond 200 ft from the road. The low frequency sound tends to carry over minor obstacles (article by Federal Highway Administration for non - technical readers on pages 262 -271). Installing water fountains in the adjacent ponds would just create more noise in their immediate vicinity thus presumably "masking" the more variable sound of traffic. It could serve as a relatively inexpensive band -aid. Someone at Wilson/Miller must have had a bad day to suggest masking traffic noise by introducing music in the Ridgewood and Oakmont parks through a system of loudspeakers. The foregoing comments on noise abatement apply to the 12 ft wall suggested between Naples Grande and Serendipity. No great results should be expected from the disruption of existing hedge and $62,700 expenditure. Why is this matter under consideration after 20+ years of coexistence between the Resort and the nearby condominium? Have new owners moved in without checking the current status? 6. Community Berm. Analysis pages 17-18,17 items ( Y, P, Y,P,Y,P,Y,Y,N,N,Y,N,N,Y,N,N,N). Learn a few basics from the past that evoked strong opposition by the residents in 2002 -2003 when a small section of the berm was "beautified" at the North Station as a sample. The main arguments at that time for leaving the berm as is were as follows: a. Do not plant anything on the berm. Plantings and trees will obscure the natural life along the berm. Additional costly irrigation and upkeep will be needed. b. Birds and animals will no longer be visible. Movement of fish, turtles, alligators and wading birds is not predictable and varies with seasons and tides. Swamps may not be pretty but they are part of the coastal mangrove environment. c. Dense littoral vegetation could present danger to people by providing a close hiding place for animals. Refer to the proposed plans on pages 284 -301. Save $160,000 by not planting any trees, palms or shrubs on the berm (D6 -C) and by not erecting useless overlook platforms cantilevered off the berm or seating areas on it (136 -B). Widening of the 10 ft berm road is not necessary but resurfacing as outlined in D6 A at a cost of $406.500 is needed. This work should be done in planned stages during the summer to minimize its impact on the residents. The engineering survey report in the Report Appendix, including sample borings, indicates that the berm structure is generally sound with the exception of a few areas where some settlement is evident. These areas would have to be addressed by excavating, filling and compacting before application of the asphaltic pavement. There is no reason to dredge the swale on the west side of the berm as long as the water drainage is not impeded. Avoid any work on the preserve side, other than trimming of encroaching growth, which would require permits from the State or Federal authorities. Do not under any circumstances install night lighting on the berm. Require property owners to clean up areas along the east side of the berm Page 4 of 5 September 2, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board IfXelica 19 Analysis by V.A. Suziedelis of Wilson Miller Community Improvement Plan Final Report 7. Tram Stations. Analysis page 19, 9 items (N,M,N,M,M,M,Y,N,N). The fuzzy suggestion of identifying stations with the names of birds is really for the birds. Call them by the physical location to assist the riders: 1 -South End, 2 -St Maarten, 3 -South Beach, 4- Commons, 5- Sandpiper, 6 -St Raphael, 7 -North Beach, 8 -North Station. Specific recommendations begin at page 309. Forget the $900,000 revamping of the entire Commons complex which includes the tram station (137 -B). The North Station has been recently updated and does not require another $180,000 overhaul (D7 -A). Vehicle traffic to /from the new parking area has to be redirected as planned in the Traffic section. The parking lot has been poorly constructed with inadequate pitch for drainage and floods badly after moderate rain showers. The Sand Piper station needs an overhaul, including a new roof, but none of the plantings on the adjoining berm or in any kind of flower pots (137 -C and architect rendering on pages 316 -317). A few benches are needed at the stations. Do not go for gimmicks such as tables, electronic bulletin screens or tram tracking systems. Tram users are interested in efficient transport to the beaches, bars and restaurants and not about lounging at the stations to socialize. 8. Signage. Analysis page 20, 4 items (P,Y,M,Y). We have far too many signs in and around the community. Remove the old wooden sign at North Pointe/Vanderbilt Beach and do not replace it. No one will notice the change (D8 -A). Do not add signs listed in D8 -B or at secondary entries and in the community under D8-C. Total savings so far will add up to over $200,000. Replace three wooden signs at key locations along the Boulevard (Commons, Sandpiper and North Station) with signs to match the design of entry to our new Community Center (D8 -D). Refurbish but do not replace the current three main entry signs on Tamiami Trail (D8 -E). The NE and SE corner signs at US -41 need cleanup and removal of obstructing palms, especially at Seagate Drive (D8 -F). 9. Parks. Analysis page 21, 10 items (P,M,N,N,N,M,N,M,M,N). This report element about the Ridgewood and Oakmont parks starts at page 347. These parks are very lightly used and poorly maintained. Many residents outside of the immediate vicinity do not even know these amenities exist. Ridgewood has five gravel parking spaces and Oakmont is basically only a narrow track around one of the lakes with access only by foot or bicycle. Undoubtedly some improvements could be implemented and the upkeep of overgrown pathways and vegetation is a must. However, it is ludicrous to think that these areas can become some sort of a social center even after expending several hundred thousand dollars as suggested in estimates 139 -A1 thru D9 -B2. Hopefully, we have heard the last of the suggested dog parks or vegetable gardens and will not be exposed to enhanced experiences, territorial reinforcement or CPTED principles. 10. New Technologies. Analysis page 22, 4 items (M,M,Y,M). This is a somewhat nebulous section because the cost effectiveness and capability of new devices is changing rapidly. Some suggested innovations (A) are already covered in previous chapters while others fall in the category of "don't implement even if it is feasible" (B). Solar LED lights have been proven their use in remote locations (C) but solar sources are unreliable, costly and awkward in providing bulk power (D). "On demand" lighting control in wide open outdoor installations subjected to varying weather conditions has not been proven practical (E). Given the almost continuous presence of people at key locations and the ubiquitous use of cell phones there is no need of disguised towers with "code blue" emergency call stations and video camera surveillance (F). Pelican Bay is well equipped with private guard services, cameras and security systems. Review of County Sheriff's records over the past two years shows minimal criminal activity and traffic violations spread pretty evenly throughout the community. There is no indication that the areas near US -41 are more prone to burglary or personal attack. A well structured network of card swiping stations may help to keep out unauthorized persons and provide statistics of attendance. The idea of installing a gate with a card reader at the entry to Ridgewood Park's five car parking lot is a joke (G). 11. Public Art. Analysis page 23, 1 item (N). After clearing the web of pompous verbosity (on this page and page 366) the emerging idea has merit. Underline the statement in paragraph D about not funding this program as part of fees or tax base but by private or public contribution. VAS Page 5 of 5 d 161 IPI"BI9 C. �O V O� U� A W N O c 00 V P N A W N A M ;u T T D D D D D D D D D D D " D n - n -n -n -n 71 -n -n -n -n -n Y v p 0 0 0 v v 0 0 0 0 °° 0 v a 0 .� CD 0 v v v v v v v v v v v Do D n 3 P, W N 00 V C) C7 W N -L — C W su W O y 0 y 0 y 0 y 0 y 0 y 0 y 0 y �_ / d O y m y y N y y rtO C rto < m n y — y —y — y —0 -0) —V y fA R RE y — o y 0 a 0 O a) O � n O f n O 7 O f S. n 0 >t = 7C = 7C = 7C = w = O 7C = O 7C = 0 w = O w = O w = O m = o fD 3 n N < �D o V) y y y y y 0 y 0 y 0 y 0 y 0 y y y y y y y 0= 3 A y+ � - CA) K) , O n CC y P m W m N m 00 m -4 m a) 1 W m C) m + m • m -L W m 'y► m N o O _p < 1 1 CD < 1 1 c 1 c 1 1 C? 1 z T V r" K = y 0 CD 0 a N= y n= __ 0 U W �p3W m m S�.Sj�=•< m m m S CD CD =r m W 3 m W SC m <D �= m O ,. 3 = C = W W C. W Q.G W C. p C_ p Q m _ C. W a< C_ W C. W .< C f0 � C. W C_ � ; - m tC C. y V) W y W y < V) < _y �D y W y y W y fD y W y < OZ < tC < OZ (C lC Q lC < <C < <C < U3 Q tC C lC _ S _ W 0 S c� ^^W lG ^^W "_ W m^ma cL @ C. m `� C. m1G G) C. m Z1 C m^c=D C. @ C. m C. m C. m C. c=D rL d � W m W 0 = w _ = 0) Z = - 0) m = 0) _ 0) _ 0) 0 = 0) �% _ 0) � _ 0) _ W � = s m a W = � O S 0) C. W C O C. m C. C. a C a ~'3 � a K M d3 C. -. C. _ =. ^ a r► � m _ y o 333s3�3 0 0 -1-0 d 3 p 3 �3 L 3cc3 m d d y o) '_► 7t M 0 7t Q W N m 7C C. 7C >r Ir 0t p 7C 7C 0 ;r a - y m y C. a v a p a a p C. Q C. cu C. Q 0 C. H m0 °, 0. 1C k v K X< ID K k< X k m K X CL 0 K ^� N V! y_ v) y m y N m 07 N y y N• =• N 3 Z ? = N CD _ _ = 7 7 7 W = (D = d 3 n y to D) < (C m CC to lC OZ to U3 < lC C. 0Z lC =_ _ 3 a C O 0) W W 0) 0) 0) %U W 0) W c cr z 0 C. C. C. C. C. C. C. C. m C. C. m �' a a a a a a a a a a a O W C_ O 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 - a a a a a a a a a a a s - O y O y O y O y O y O 0) O to O (A O V) O V) 0 y 3 — 3 CD C. m C. CD C. m C. m C. m C. m C CD C. m C. m C. m C. x o '0 Q. •� S = O CC � d � 64 « <0 <n 40 N N Vi <0 N � CO 07 O V O W M 0 4�6 O <oR O 00 _� 00 -1 W -4 00 _ W O V 64 N W O W O V O W .p W -a. W 00 r•r 07 N CO .p O! W O w O C a M W U) z O _ � y X x X k k x k x x X x K X N? o v W _ � b C) co 3 m N -p N o ° O 3 m m n� CO D m -0,< o m ID m X g y. < Fn- (D 0 m W � o a cn o m 3 � v CD v (D N O u 1611, B19 A�•f W�f N OT SOT V T V1 A W N O � O N "' N A W N V V T V V V •Wn V � J �1 .-0 .� .0 D D D D D D D .Z7 A T� /v DD T T >>>>>>>> T T T T T T T T J - l T T_ T_ •. -n -n -n -n -n n -n Ci /2/�� VI Cl) ,Z^ N /Z/^^ V/ /Z^ N ,Z,^^ VI rZr^^ VI ' � n �\ 0 ^^ 0 /� 0 0 �\ o o ��••� \/ I y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0000'ogg000 -0 o N N N mm rnmmrnmmmm 0 D D 1 D D D D D G) 'n n � ° ° °° n 3 N N N N a) 7 r 0 p D'a D a v D 3 co D a_ ) �� = = == p �• a �. <• �. a i a) _D (D `< .cl) O n (D 3 3 3 3 9.3. 3 3 3 n (D 7 O a) - y a) y = 7 << � 7 a) 77 n 'a Cli 3 3 0 O (D M bbbvbbcccb o 0 0 0 _ _ � 'O (D m < eY f<D (D N < (D Co 'D Co - � 7 (D (D M 3 fD Q � M < �! CD n � � °n s 0 O < 7 O a) L7 -0 O p O `G `< <' (D 0 C' (D C (� �' O (D < (DD O Q NNaa o »�yyyH x o y < m o O cnn Q O C3 _ O SV) a fn (� V) (n on V) - --- 0000000 - --- - - 0 (D O O m (D 0 7 O D O o O O H O O (D S. o O o �' > >> > > > > > >> - ". N CL 3 'B a) °' < 3 Q" < Q V M S n " n ,_� n C7 vvvvvvvv�v W o a o D D' o - - - - - -- (D CD 'O O y �< (D a) 0 (p (D CL (p CD Q. O O O Q CO) j N C a' mmmmmmmmmm �wmwdddmo m ;u -O 3 < (D _� _� n (D 3 (� 7 mmmmmmmmmm nn n nooinno O C� e O C O0 < O0 ai < a) .O .p V) O (n 3 .a md===ddwdd � �' O < (D < (D a% 0 M CD 0 (n 0 �%% O 7 Q Q CD � a) < (3D a) w < y � � v < no 3333333333 3333333333 00000000 C (D � =r � O � � � N CD ur'��' (D (D Cn � V) (D c -� O (On C C C = = = == O a ry, r•' 0� 0 "a (7 p CD 3 DDDDDDDDDD 303- 303n0m0m0mO ) (D CO D fD (D 70 o 7 o _ 7 (D _ Q 7 03-0-- N n 0 3 O D n CD 0 " 0mmmmm x (D (D 0--a a- � 'a N a O CD 'd - y O O O O O O � ° .3D . pa7C > N < D 3< CD ( n M (D p n ` oo002222 W S N '.nmmm'm'wa a) (� m (� C Q C CL (D in M X O a) S N -. (D O 0000 °nn��oo v N V) w (�c°'i�ca'im O oo �o `D cDa�3 of °o N 4 V) N (D (D -O (D O -a < �3 no= H�N�3° O O O o v 0 a' S �Q ° `< CD ° m 7i m CD c °m°° °Nd° O G a O fD (D M Q 0'a ai D m D m D m D Ci a) Y CL a) a) O `< a) W (i O (D n O l< O< l< 7 d Qm° d m_mQmQm d O G a> Q 'C a O N �� n V) � n (D 0. cp (!f (n.' (D mmm� Qm�¢QmQmg2 "� "m < 0 V) in 0 0 = 0 (D "� O (D o 7C V) n °zNmNmN�Nc in (D "O '8 N (D C '_* o m 3 S 3 (n -. < (D 0- p O y o to y O a1 77 (D V) (D Y O a) 3 v r N O► 'O V) O to V) (Q a) m _� CD O a) a <' SD m N N W ,A N -0h N 40 40 .p .p Cn .p Vi V w O O " N N-Ph Cn N 07 -P6 CD W V -1 -1 N O (n N 00 N (D W (D O a) N QY Cn O Cn in O m O CC 0.) O O Cil to O O N O Q 0 0 0 O O O CD, O O O O xxx W y z -n 'a 7 V) X K X K X K X k K X X X x k N a o 3 7 0 (n 0 0 35 c 3 x � 3 iv -O N O N O 3 CD �D vCO CD Co CD m CD 0 w y CD 0 CO °1 0 x � a cn o m a CD m 0 m CD w 0 Al 16 h 819 B a CD N -O N 0 E3 o 3 v cD m 0. v v W � v o' Cl) CD m V7 (CD 0 (D y L] 0 W O 7 � to o m Di 0 N O• T O Ui (n N Cn N U Ui Ui A A A F A '.. A W 1J D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D A � -i -I -1 -1 � -I -1 -1 � -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 2 2 m m 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 2 2 2 2 co to cn to cn to Cf) to in to Cl) (1) N w w to Z Z Z v p p p p v v v v p p v v p p 0 0 0 0 a 0 W W W N N N N N N N N N N N O D L L -n -n m m m v v o o o o 00 W 3 m" C CD m CD� a D DD W D 0 D_D D p m a Oi m a p m a m C CD y O�; Ca CD cD = a 0 °_' "" 0) CD 3 CD 3 CD 3 m r _n K K j (D 3 7 fQ p m< E t4 7 7 3 7 O O O Z 'd X— n rt cc m — n c' fD X— 0 rt (Q' m W rt 3 D) rt W (> 7 fD W rt ID C1 rt (D 7 3 K 0 7 K_. O < < < O rt S rt= S(D rt S C. m n C. m (D S _� W ' `< S CD m =' << _K Y O CD m W CD W (D W :> N < m CD _' W y m M<< m S, �' _0< CD rt 3 �' CQ u2 y O 3' m y O y n y O p y p T. y to S cn O m O y 7C p y t 0 O O p CD X X N X -� c y c cc �G c (D 2 3 3 3 < r. W K W * y0 ' S _•! Q TI r 'p' C, D) � p O O O y m Cl) �' 3' 4 �' Q a (D p p o y p `< p-h 0- a a p o U2 ' (C p (Q .. W C m 7 7 " W .. CL 7 3 7 3 (D N (D 3 3 � 0 2 D) 2 0 2 n S W '+' D) S N N j S O O n m `G G> N � C E. W W W C _3 �' m Q Ci Z C C C 2 m W W frt�D (�-D �G y W y N a C CD 3 (n c c> 3— < Q cn C 3 m m m m rt 3 6- >r O z 3 S N N CL m CL m CL m V) O rt , y X rt (SD t°'n .t rt rt (� O (D C CD O y C m y V1 y 0 S W W CQ W = rt CD N m N m w 0. m a D a U 0 < CD a CDD 0 O °h a m 7 m : m a 0-9 " x n to Z ~' pSj n n n in rt W rt CD M m C (D y m p 6 O C �. _. 7 7 7 (C O 0 2 2 ((DD 2 CD CD n 7 0 S 0 rt =r S w rt W z 0 m y W 0 � y O - W S N N 0 y CD C C C 3 m n 3' y ° D) `< 1 a S 0 W 3 7C v W N 0, CD < r m r m W r `� ° m O a�i D O ,a-Y' ca cn �• c < cn D Q. m m (° CD a' 4 (C (Q rt w 3 a a a) fD < °- C O O N to S C S O S a '. cn W S -' '•�+ W o rt rt CD cn rt y rt y 3 CD n W 3• m W rt S N 5. O O Q= C f�rtD C p 9 * 3 w �. 3 CD M <D 0 O W m `G a W ,� O S m S m x to N m N cD C 3 C `G W W G p S Q •z a cn in 0 cn 3 to to Q- y 33 0m < =r 'a � to CD � m 3 m m m a rt O = -% m Q' O O W cn (C W W X co W� = W S G m W 7 O m O m O jm W Q- Y m r N ti w w N� m rt DJ `G m i V O C C C S C W m Cl cn V Vf to W N ol4 VR 64 N W s C71 N 0 O W O a.1 N O N W-& O O « 0 4 W O N 00 a) 00 (D CO Cn O W 00 -I CYI N to a) O W 00 O 00 W O (A W to W O V CA V 49 00 ' � O O Q 0 0 O Co O C O Q 0 0 O U C IV W cn z O � y X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X X� o X W B a CD N -O N 0 E3 o 3 v cD m 0. v v W � v o' Cl) CD m V7 (CD 0 (D y L] 0 W O 7 � to o m Di 0 N ca 0 1 u 161 f X819 oCD 3 R c 3 �cy, N N a° C) 3 m m CO � m o' m CD W COD CD o <. < m m n 0 Co O 7 Q � D o m v' Cn CD m s r r r r r r r r r r r rr r r r r r r D D D D D > > D D D S C) z z v z Z z z z z Z Z Z "2 J J j j w n 0 m m m m m m m 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 n n 0 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z D D D D D D D D D D G) G) 0 O O O G) G) m m m m m m m m m m v v v v 0 v 0 v v v v° v v v v v v v -0 0 -fl, ill A f, -!�, f, f, A w o w w w w w w w CD p m v 0 W D O 0 W D D w N s n co W W 3 � c W D D D D D= G) D D D D� - 0 0 m n CL Q Q Q C2 CD 0) CD CD ° ,� °! ,� X ^' ° CD O CD O - ° - Q C2 Q Q iz 0 O sZ iZ CD tD `* I = = a = _ fn o o n o o c c c< nD AD a "= CD 0, � v C m Q v fD 7 a 7 7 7 N CnD C C °�' W CD S r CD - CCD 0O CD O 'a 'a 'a a* <' CD = < < CD M M CD '° s 'a S = 3 0• y CD a K `< ' < �< K tD = CD CD O CD CD m v O CD O CD 0 CD = _ _ N O $ (n x m -i CM D l�D N . CD . � m m C<D m M ° O_ O_ -N cn o X N x o) o Ocnt= 0 m m Cn Do 0 A m n o D o c CD CD 3 m o cn cc T ^ V) -0 � w O = _ _ _ CD M = N � COD _ — cc CD = a _ a = CL v 3 r a• m m C v m C v = v o 0 - c�D ° W m cQ' ca' to w Cl) CD = = O O 2) -4 O W _ v v a d o 0 0 = _, -h Off co CD CD !Z 0 a) i co CD d N A i CD G6) a)) 0) CD �= N 0 � N G-) M. o 7C C (DD CD O CD 0 (n = C> Cl) = CI Vai O co K 0 O O _ o =(n y 3a3Q fv W .a. sv N CD CD N S = tD _ CD _ CD c p) CD M CD N f9 svQ = to CD N CD y .. CD CD CD = — K C2 K CD " = CQ CD W _ N CD w _ O . = O = � CD Cn Cn N sZ * w K 'a V E cn CI CQ I co D y o cn <D c o° o a 0) N CD = r- o y CA O C� C7 u 01 W X n j C N a CD CD = N O to CD CD O O 7 m = -1 CD U) a• a• m co CU CL m Wo � CL ° a ;� v _ .2) �' a 3 O ° O � s s m s CD W W Cn _� _0 S CD S CD CD CD CD C1 CO/) _ i a) (D a) a) O a) ca = cn 2) W = -h x y � r vi ° 0 1 0 _' ° O = 0 0 °O _ p � c to h O. CD '* m a Q O ai = a = v 3 in 40 fR � 40 64 di b4 of to ER to to 40 � 40 to:? to w Co G) N N 0 W O (n W O 0 0. " bR EAR w N w O j " W w -0b � O 00 y 4 N N O N N N w ul ul � .1h 00 ;:, N N to CJ1 (n in O O -, -1 O -1 O O -A CJ1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .p Cl O O CD o O O O O O O W y z n mo O _ •0 N x X X x x x K K X k K K k K k X X K Q o v , _ 5' oCD 3 R c 3 �cy, N N a° C) 3 m m CO � m o' m CD W COD CD o <. < m m n 0 Co O 7 Q � D o m v' Cn CD m s N N cn O E 161 1�'B19 N 00 r P✓ w N , 0000 C W 000 O� O N 00 O W N" O �O m V O. m (n A CO W cn A W N V V D D V D D V D D V V D D mxx7C33iii33 9��- D A 1111 m x X� -i m -1 p A �-1 A A -innn m 0 0 0 olio 0 0 0 C C C C C C C A.'i1 ><7C .T1 .T1 7<x ."OA 7CI zv mD DDDDD T N DD iiiii3iiiiii D DDi iiii ;� � Vi � Cl) � � Vi wwwwww 'A wwwwwwwwww D wwwww CCCCCCC T� DDDDD DD DDDDD- ZZzzzzz - V� 0000000 (n OO OOOmmm�� W CO CO W W zzzzzzz wwwwwww -i zzzzZmmmmmmm wwmmommmmmmm m m m m m m m iiiiiiR X X X X A A X O Z N 000000 P P'P'P'P'P 0 ° m 000 9191 40 0 91 D 00000[7 mm�DD JJJO $$�$�$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 'O C mMNNDo t0 mm1 m �I mofDDDD (n (n (r CA (A (n Ul :D c�J 0 bonc�ooaoD ci 3 01 L > _ W 3 m m n 0 m n a _ 7 MO. m m _ u�i ' D m 3- _ D'1 m m of 'o °a m of D D m D Q D 7 D :rt D Q 3 m m °' c m^ 3 g N 3 3 m-= z m m m 'm �_ 3 m m �' ° m m 3= w 3 3 m m 3 o m _D (D Q .' (D N .-. (D Q W o_wn1A.'mo�isw¢ 0 -0wwm wAwwa Ql (li N (V 7 -- �icA 0 �'c md_.m fD -3 - -3 qc Doom - .� .-� .� Q O D.. 'm zjo (D n.. m' 7' .. ..a G O �• w N tD p n nn6'3 g m ��3mcv3 mma O n ��na�mc'oc 3: c �m�ig" o o m m (D LA y nor _nmcno "'� g a' m.. �ziwa a° g�.��m `a ° c N 0 C O O Cl) O C O Q (D to O C .fir �. -0 N CD mmxw� (D Oge ^ ^m ^ ^S K ID zF <mm�'� °gn mnn = O = 7 O 3 =,3m ymmw �1 pO�34,� =�� sc +wcm -HIS 7 � 7 (D 7 O acm3iBw t� p�_m p°3� °m. n,o ( z?" 3ma��3a1a1m o D CD D @ c M a w ^ - D) (3 m�mmm3w�.ml ° (D °m . 3^m �g ' o 9. Q (1) 0 (D (v (T 0 wmm x. CL o o �.m� Q1 — D) 7 rt C 71 ° mam' A nn$.m n (D $3 n bl moo ao m w° BEm 'y, m O 's an m m me N =7 CD O 7 3 _ (D• n O 7 W c F m° < '-''J '"a _� °jmwocwin�i,3 n g 0 (D Q O t7 N Q p S °A�a =. o ff. g rt mg m on 'c 3 11 '^ Omm�m'" 7 w 9 3^ � O '0 .7+• -' O Gl p -0 (D C o° wo ' _ �o��° N CD rt 7 0 N A01A�'o mw�m �' ma'. m wi ° 1'1 y O n (D O O m N 3 a 01 °< m v - °° (D O m O 7 = 0) fD 7c (D n N — tq n m' k >r � n C) - (D 7 Q V1 Q N 3 CD Q 5- e m O O 3 O (D n O 1S1 x U) - ° '(7 x w o 1 = 7 m 3 Q tS C 3 ` 0 4 3 M � m' Q 7 M C fll n0> 7 i no = m °� m ID 3 0 (D Q w o = m c fD N 7 N Ca A N 3 N O � 7 y 3 0. m '� 0 O (D 7 Q (D 3 m o 3 3 c O o 7 r j �G CA 7 — CD 3 (D O 3 c N N V W Co 0 (n d 1 W N M N qy ONE 91 M W N W A �+ N V m U+ �+ r �pp V 1 V n O O A 91 N+ J O 91 W bmb N O f�D O A W W 91 N N 91 V f T J 91 0 O f p O«i W+ W N D+ W O f O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 51 01 O O O O O O CD c X X x x x x x x x x x X x X X x x x x x x x X X x x X X X X X X X CD cn z O 7 � � N X 0 Q 0 0 0 tv 7 to Om N 7 Q N N O_ � O 3 c fD .7•. A � m o (m N (p w CD C• to Vj O. 7 W N O 7 � �a T ,o 0 m 3 m y 0 • 4 0 d ') a= N O D Li Lb H °- IE d j O Z � wn i rn E T T d m - 3 w . E = E fn L1 U 1611 F B19 a N Ua 0 N co N O r `o d d i z y n N O R O M m N M fn !b 's p d s a E d R n O m - E N l•'1 M Of st 'Od' h O fD A fA O .y o° n > Q y d U _ n N N U N m b M O R M N OI n !A O d N m cw N to a n W fn N O N Ly C R V U c � N N N N N d • LL m r N N N N N M a N Lp N m N L. N Lo N d O NN d fV M N 00 N M aM-• L P Qj LO M N n n LO a pp x x x x x x x x x x x x x Ha c O LL a o ©O �° °0 0 m M m Ln N r W (p M rr o !b M M O r O W LO at Ot O IT co N n tD co h co co m to m cn ff} 60. fA fA N 40 f N f61). V! !f} f A ffl 0 — e O L 7 a = O 0 d 0 = � ° N d y y II II II II II II II - E - a e 5 5 O O O O O O O O `o e _ m a o a O a II O c II O a II O c O a o a o a O -- Em mBm o � c c c II II II II m � w z m y N y y y y d •41 W d .y N N N >r o ° p `O d O d - - - -- 0 0 d pv x d p d d d LL' d` d IIoIIQ`II d d II d C d Y IIam y _____wanes nn� ty0 P °�3'� e R �Q �C� `II`dY LLOY O`Coa`'so_= �+ ' ° =EmE °-II Em E�EwE E3E�E EEEEp _`_`_` c Y c „Ld, R z =II = C II>,IIEIISa C C C (� G (� C amIIdIIoIIwE C C C C IIm =q ° "o "oo`o$ N C m A °c R R R R R R R '6 R R Z R= C pooaa R dII II II II d K C7 ° D d Y L�E E �> d C .O d CII d CII CII d C•° d C d C d d C II C II aEE¢a¢d`a d C'O d�E L c m` E acs 7_ _ e y m LT> yw yRI rn> y m L71> y(� rn— d °>m rn >N La> pt> OL > =aa E�EEEEEEEE -- -- - d Q R E E A > II y y> y m N m y m 000 EOOOOOE y II R C La C d « E '= v II II G d m d> d II d m II R d II> d II d> Q d` II Q d II >` d R L 7 LL C p V a = L C L i y N R L N C L m N t m N L R L L .Y L m L m L m 9 O C C O o° R a C C ,✓� a.✓_� R y R y C N C _y C m_________ ad ...... 0 a z. � a) !d a N p LL c a u6a Q C C O M o 0 0 N y— y— 22212Y y 2 JE 2 y 0 0 0 C C YO CO Y C Y C Y C Y C Y Y i- o ��GC� $E 11 V E E 6 O U O R O d O U U C R R G R- o Z= 0 0— y e — 3 3 3R m 3 3 V 3— U in i sx4 y y y y — W.W. 'E a d a L E p C¢ oE d N C 0 C 0 C V y C C .y- y C C Z 2 C � yy E E wm- m:nc E EE E tcs o 0 0 a 0 0 0 m E `-' Q m O 9 9 0 9 9 6 D O O Oo: ano_� L) O d a o 0 0 � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .w'n�Q 00000sss000 ww ygiui U U U U U U U U U U U U U LL LL LL QQLL �� LL LL LL QLL LL QQLL LL LL LL U. LL LL LL QLL LL LL Li LL LL LL LL QLL uu�uuu�... a N Ua 0 N co N O r `o d d D D D D D D D D D D D 2 2 2 S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 = 2 2 T T T T T T T Ul al Ul cn M Al N w N N fA rA (A Vl f0 cn T T T T T T T n n n n n n n O O 0 O a O O O O O 0 a 10 0 00 2 0 O m o p p W N 0 0 w N w N N N D D D D 2 2 GI Gf T N � '^ w 0 3 7 L D 0 A m D D D `2, .'0 �J 'O 7] w D 9 D 'O m V 3 m o� T^ V m T m .... y D 61 7 D W 7 I'1 m o w ID N O 03 30 7° w °i w w 0 cp %1 D 70°: 7 j w0 7 0 < 0 < 0 3 < 0D.:. 7 n m.° < o A 707 ° °.: 7 :: ° a °.: a m. w �' o 0 I<D 7 7 7 G< 0 O <7 -° O O w C m L w L < N Q <' ID L! 7 a wTN O f W'pW ° w `G 0 w `G O < w y d w < ID C O f!1 f/1 w n <O< W N ID w d w N O w 0 W '� N w w w w a 0 0 0 y O O w y O ry �' O 7 0 W 0 W 0 O_ O O_ A O O O O 0 0 A c c f c 0 3 3 3 d c0 c 79 wow =a =a`L �nL '000 -yam 0 =` o 0 <=2,cuOEE*r 0 .a,.�w.°D-OD' o a o a ° 3 30 0mo w .0 o0d 7. o w w a3 �> M m o m�37ID 0° ID 0A0 ° v o�m 7 0< 7 < �7!u� 7 7< ° 7 7 =y'm v °.aa vw'o�v� 0 m 0w0m 7 y w nZ 0 0 0 C .0 'O O L O ID 0 •�� w< w w ww 7 3 L 3 0 d 7 d '° a m y 0. w CL CD N p O. d G. m n 0 n .w. I'i fn C'i 6 a w < m N Iwp w �• w I<D 7O -i 'O 01 y N N m w y N y i y -`�. w0 a' w a �+0 w .' 7 •L•. 7 '� •O N d w 3w -O 3 D �m3 0 7 w 7 O w m 01 m N T O O O 0 O m f1 TT O O 'O 0 7 •O 0 F W 0 O p T� L 7 7 A A 7 t'1 V 'O W w 7 w 0 ID W w w N O w N n OD —6� O 7 7 N 0 o S c o c D °—: o 0 7 7. 0 3 w m m m Sava° a a 3 w o °c °ma °m°Oa, 0 °� w° 0 0 �� wd= m° o'o oa wo- y°no °3 w w 7• O W w w 'O a �< w 3< 0 1D 3< 0 0 w O Cwt .L. 0 ,L. 7 O 1, fD 7 N `. w w .O O W� w d W N O R O m w m w w S w 7' 0 w �• d w 0 •O01 -O. N O 0 O' -Ow w — w w fn 'O W w D ."0 a m 71 0 n fw1 s a1p.6 a m 0 S S 70 A 0 ° m n s 0n uD w °D v 0 m° p y° 0 m° v fy 3 3. W N '00 L 00 CD `° C O. d .7. 0 3 7 C -� O N m S w 7 d 6 y w 9 w h w O , CD O - 7 0 7 a 0 N w y 7 y 3 �< 7 0 _ n 7 ID f 0 'O a 7 �. S Dc Ion w T T w ID < 7 a 0 0 0 O 10 01 00 0 0 w ID w 0 O lC O w •0 �O {D f O. 0 ° m o. CD m m m Vi FA M 49 ND 6A t N AIO O1 W N O EA V Io A O OD W O DD V O1 N V V O (Ji 01 N 00 N w m t0 O o tD (1f 01 G W Ol W O A V O V 0 Ib 0 tl1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O T A QJ w T O 7 T w X X X X% X X X% X X X % % T-- % X X X O ' N N W 3 N A O O O W 00 A A V N W 01 N W W co W tG -1 01 M N O O O 0 O 001 =• 7 m � W 0 CO V _ w W N W n 7 W W O fn O n 0 W W 01 V N W W t0 O 0 M w 161 i� `B19 0mcn 3 3 C, N � � O 3 " m O v H: v� 0 FD In m � m 0 c cn0 .y �a �U N O n and N O o c c o t0 ya O E � U > o Z No. in E � � T a m - m m E N O vlaU 161i B19 E N OD h O M V' 10 w C Y .7 C 3 R dw a d V T O e N r p p N O w m E N co M N O_ d N N d w > = O D N O M 7 N N N N Of d M M d U N R A C U R co u c dw 1 O N M N W r O R Q N n N n d rS a` N PNY N � N A N N X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X X N a C O LL bt m IL 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 W 0 0 C M 0 w 0 O 0 0 CO M 0 t0 o fD O O) o O 0 N o O r O _o C:, O o .N . 0 a) M R a) N LO OD N O 00 7 R N w o M M (D er It M M N N w W M l0 to m N V fA Ei3 fA N M fF? QA N N O f0 M W w M W N 4'f H3 fA EA 6s kA (A tA. Vf M fR fA R « N d CL c d C R 7 O 7 O O �rL O O O C O C ( Y CL d 0 d v md � m x md D pw , � E m C d d 0 J X = L a.. >O' >.R R c O E 'p « E c 0 y 0 d N w C v, d C E NO d 61 d q wwr..' 9 d d w _ 9 ; d _ �' .O ; m G C o f R w m p CL d N ; m t; E o O u a j c u y 7 a c° R 7 c 3 R a c R a rnm d d o N E R a d w E O o 2 V1 N Of 9 m o N o c N .rd. fn ` w d GO. X D d O 3 d X O v o 3 N X O a v E d .d„ W y o C V o C w .� Lm Val CL R N O C .y d d �,J d _ d E V J d B J> d •d 9` LLE m E« p) A (n c aO E C R N GO E C R N R^ N y O a On C •N m R t O R w0 ` C u dxd x xg acE.od9d a� d l.s c d mu m m -m RmmemE ayE O c cc a ux B y ; rL mo rL xYoxrnxU) a: o H v .Y E R d O' m a C CL .R-� R« d N r d C w ci d c y O U C ` _ d R r d O d U R C r C` m = w 'N '- w F ; C> 10 O H d R w R} N O p H d n N° o .O R O Y C E V m a d R d R d �p 0 1- R O R O 7 c d d R C > m _ E R m y C E 2: `m_ N m E a d R.v_ a m m a x m v m a U) m d) a mN m 0 r w = .a L K m r ` coin m 0xoo El d > > -o' dW; ; a 00 0 N ; W E d x 2 OQao a E = C C 7 J r N 3 d a=-. O 0 m 2 x E d S li C C R o R 7 C C d 0.2 L R c a C .O C C OI w0„ C O y C W p C M m G r M CA C_ cm C_ O O 9 V C C O O c d N E '5'5 d R O 7 O 7 - fD - y N •- N M - N y O Ul Q N Q c Im w ._ _ 3 j O c> OI c 0-6 p 00 0 y L Vl d X X % X 0 2 �% 0 �X Vl - 0 0 O � E dd d C r� d d d >>.0 w R d y >d C N > d C «L d C .L.L d C «L d 0 waCw d O d 0 w6Od X W d d > > N d 'o d; > c u d C) d rn d Lm d d o d d d d J , N d C C `d C C R E ni a? E ::::� Q Q 0 cR d« v a`l .O « .9 do d W a` d ado d« W ac 0 d O fC ac d O ac > d O y > E 0 C m _ LO 0 LL OC U R' d. V7 Q Q Q 3 C E W W W 4, LL 7 Q Q Q m m m U (J U U O y C.) IL N 00 N N 0 N 1310 N N N 0 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 A 0 M 0 M 00 M M 0 M 0 Z 2 N 2 to N 2 x to x N x N to x 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z d a Qa Qa a (7 C7 C7 C7 t9 C9 (7 f7 C7 (7 IL (L J J J ._I J J J J J J z PcA a D s z��9b 94 T�°b 333333isanara> Y Y Y y D Y Y Y Y Y r m C y m x33 3333 ` 333333333333 Y " " "' z z z z z z z z z 3 !"'WORM, = �pmAAA� v v 1 v o o v v v y - - -yyya °��z� N 13333333 con N N N N N N N N N 0 n N n Z �z000mmmmmmm m m m3333333 WO n D D n v D D 0 D n n D D D D D p _ m m m m m m m m m m m $$°r �r $$ mm �o an nbum�xmw� A A A A A A A A A A W o N O SONG -o W n V O p 0 0 0 n ca W W D p m000O> 0w> = r 3 3?om,A D D D D D g A:0 o v D: W d ?. zzooxg -sgn P;P�gaP_P��,?a?a? >= '3s� n �_;•_-- �••° "9 m R.m =a a a m a o a s m �, 3 �_ _m3 z ;'p `�` -_ Qo °_= - <. . +� °Rg ^ +" °? e °dd O o d n ddO00 e .o o p a 7 o Z �SaacO- ��ma'mRo`N o3mN3 Ra 7 7 7 _ ID n 0 == o 0 0 0 0� 3 3< � eCD 3 aa£v$ =7 ac �m'm 3 "e W �•� - 'zm -°�`. R'su2 7 7 N ° p m) "-z^ s3.m w .� .� .� .� M W CD ° °a 0 ?- mQRa 4 m o N N N I 1 7 7 • "n 3 SU3 R3'm'° - m -'� m 0 0 W D 0 O 7 7 7 n.3 ,°.m d° ° R• S• ° R "4 iii A n W d d d m 3_ R �?• d° -• 3.� °.m A 0 6 O. d p 0 o y - °u ?s "o3S3a m 7 u2 ml 'O F; d 3 O W 6 0 - - a ° m N m�" m4§ mgr z a3 m 0 Op x _ N -I ID iJ W .7i l0 fC N 7p fD S 11 o_ o C n = m ism O - - -- • °` ,' C - R 3° e 3 3. s E 3 CD m A 6 O O o' • ze 6 °� a C a3 ozm 5,3', m m m n Q o 3 R N = m 3 ' .N. y 3 3 N ID 7 7 C y N ID y 0 R° 0" E ° 3 v ry y 0 CL # CCD E Rn p W N A IF '�' N ' a N p ;s n d -u fG o O N r W E is W (12 p d Da 3 _ 3 - (D W y C y M Z a n d N 70 O N A 7 S O W C fA fA Vl fA W W N 07 O O) 01 -3 N s A Z "O OD V A N N N c0 N O: N N On N O N Or e88o °o °0 88� So °o °a 888 °o 008888088�� O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O G 0 0 O O 0 0 O 0 O e 0 8 � d N n 0 7 'O 0 O X X x x X x x X x X X x N N N N N N N N N N N W 3 OD W Om �1 N' N W W tO V N V O1 Cf co Om w Gm m m d '' 7 O OWD N w w W W 0) co W co V O _ m � O Vt W W V OWf tWJI tO O V �. °a d 0 7 A v W ONj 01 A W N -� 0 Con M W DWI N n N N N N N N N W N W W N N tO a0 V T O O A of 0 0 N C O °u a O V W N T O (N71 tN0 W V 3 W ON1 n a A W N O ? y (Nl1 ONE W t0 OJ 3 3 c 5 m � z r d 7 p x o N " A W N V O O N V t-1 c DNm CO ,� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1;:'i N V A W + N O W W (Nfl Om 3 N N 2 0 m 3 3. m m° EK -3p N N � o m O V H m o 0 91 n rn � (n m 0 1611 619 C 0 oN co O o a m C C O N Na � d n N y = a � v m E a= E U) Od. U F I a c I .a. EI E i L• E E U 1 161 N fV 0 N m O A `o R d a 4 a x" co C g Y (� K d 'e E c E m° o oN N c N O z_ N V m (� a m b O H N EA �N Yi ilVi n N o W 0 1p Vf O °i N O N m N N C N y `O N O N O O M O ' N M t+f N Oi O OD M N c O N O O N W yy O Eli A O N W O sf N W p O M rN M N H M O O N !A 1A It fL Ep N t D l0 E9 OO N fR N V E9 O N EA N p It T pl W jp W x c n E m ? o m G ad = O G u m m m c O -E > ` N(a) o o> •� > m a m > c °' a m m m m a a Uo m m d m n' N T M m a v .a E c o 0 0 F d 9 O d O d d Y 9 0 x = N ? Y — 3 a ? y 3 m 3 3 $ o m` o S T 0 0 n r y E o 0 0 0 o $ = m `u a c a d d E m `a o > = 9 a a a z a `o n a c U °i `o E T D a $ a o a 0 a o a E Z o U u m C m C m > p p a n L c 3 .c c a a: o `o 'd m '� C m m `o •� o — N - N E ° m_ a t m m m d o a ° a do m d m w o K d o d v a a y ni m d d d d o EO ed ad y v Q Q A a m u d u u m °`' a d a 01 L O E O d uG L 6 9 6 C C L N .0 L _ _ T T N O c > O O ° N - _ - L ACT S 3 i N '• N °' 6 VJ Vl L d - d a a a a •> T r TO x Q c o c O C a a j w m O c c o c E O y d ` E o °0 m o E . m > > M. ° co 42 Y E o a ty o a u ❑'°0 s _ ° . u u °o u a O — d aG i °° .o , vO .0 d O =m d z q o ry " o a m❑ o o N v N v N w N w w N o o a N a N a N a N o m N o m N U U U U U N U U U U LL ILLL LL ILLL LL 2 N S N 2 N S N 2 N Z N 2 LL LL Y. LL N 2 N � m 2 (n 2 �• LL N S IL LL fn 2 F- �- N fV 0 N m O A `o R d fp W O J W N N O_ ^O lCl N iJ v 'o r 'n r '� r 'n N -( D� m m S m v D v a m v a v D v D m z m z -> D ;-a -( A v D -Di -DI 1 Z --I � 1 Z Z N N i O Z co N N N N N N N N N N N T T N G1 N 1 N 9 'DO > V VDO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p 0 0 N N W W w V A A A N N A N N N .P. A b R + N T T D D D o m n 0 O O m D D D a > 6 6 o m D m m N N N D O o' W a n a 0 y A v 3 ry ' °o o S m S x �0 m S m ^S 3 m o 9 < 0 m y Pi`i o 9 0 C p y u m m x . xi0 c b xw . y id o 0 N c m T N T 3 o u t n x m ' 3 m 3 3 > D o [ ° o v 3 ae 'S [ 3 'o ° n<'Q a d . a 3 m m a,��oudW 0 0 0 ° 9 ry 3 c ' m m d a H m d x W -> m° i ow - m m 0 £ om 3 3 m 3 FV t w:: s n o . ia F e O S o m m o w u°D i ° a ' o �° mr o °riw a n ^ 'D m • °N m O 1 °A o [x i ZN I r � N °4 1 v w d i ° ip0 o n G Y m w N w V N - � _ S O N 3 i ° V 0 ° N 9 O - r m v a c ° m 'xc ' m x m y a n 0 g > c 3 m F '^ 3 • •m m m �m , N E � � ud N 0 0 o O im ' S o N H a m 0. im o a o n T c d ', D m m m - = - o i 0 N - Vi O O O fA W O O O . O Ep . O O iR N O . O O fA N O O tq O N O O M W O O ifl . O O N O M O . O dl O N O M N O N O O M O O O N O W O O O A N N O O V V O ONI iA T 0) m W j A O W W W Oo j !O al m N V N A J A V 9 � d L• .L A A A w J N Of � � j V N W m m V Fr O m j N 0 M A A y O_ - • O O m O 3 0 3 3 m A Gl x O S O A k s 0 3 3 3 3 H ()VN 3 � 3 N N � _ O D 00 mO T N. N O J � T W O � w N fD N 16111 1,19 C 0 d N m am N o °a` m c c 0 a m „ E O > O d nNi rn E m .T. m E U) CL cs 1611 gZg E 3 a 0 d x m a`u .d z E a o . m o � on D n U m Z N a T t Np V a m O1 N _ C Oi M'. N m O m b ° a to m in OD 1A t0 W C 'p 1 ci N N O y N (O N M b N N N y y O y y N N ty 0 V 0 0 M 0 0 y 0 ID 0 0 N 0 0 W 0 0 o e 0 o y 0 0 l0 0 N 0 0 r 0 tN0 0 0 t0 0 � 0 N 0 w _ 0 0 M _ o o m _ m M n � o o N d o C d C C V O O O N > > y m ¢ ¢ E m a 3 ` vv vv mo m a 2- C u ¢ ¢ O Fd 6 y O 6 d O 6 d T m C w C T y a p d O m O y C Y i `° ` d m d ° N C : y v a n Y C m d m n c co O d d Z O « d 0 O m C O. O O CO W n a E N m � O N� � � ` El C " � � O � > $ 0S o O 3 C d a A V •Q�. LL K r � o E C m y w e u y o v 3 a E o ` :°•r n �•E c m a E o o m `m `m mq mr mL o ° y « ° u ° u c c c rn N A Ev d A O1 •d d c d c E c OI a a a ° O 3 O o �L d m a s a o a o E .� « 3 « « 3 c c E S y S °. S K 1° d 2 a o c r °' d u c` y = n` c d m c r a c u m c c .. m rn m m R c O U ❑ f Of .. W A !n n d a m �d-' y O O '� O '� N u_ O u o 0 S t`i 0 n '_ o •� v x E d m o d m `o o c c c 0 0 0 —o :; `o o `o o vv o d n c = d u d y d y y T ._ 'K ° m y m T y y> y C m U m 8.2 0 r O C d d m L d > d j 6 ° a_ d d a_ d G m d p —> U m V m V y > Y q._ 0 q.� E U U C m O E E E U E d ` `� W — — m m° o.o K Z-6 °= v v d oo❑ L :: O 2 .ot a :; d m a y ¢ o — ¢ ¢ ¢ mo z ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a ` ¢ v a ¢ ¢ ¢ m 07 N m (7 U' U p p O U m U U N U U W O S S LL LL LL c4 O D p ❑ p p ❑ O O � O � � O � ❑ ❑ O D O O O N ❑ d O o 0 ❑ o ❑ Z Z Z U U U U V z 2 U 2 U 2 ❑ Z ¢ U U U U U U U U Z _ _ = ILLL LL aO ap ❑❑ _ _ _ _ ❑ LL ILLL LL lLLL LL = = LL LL ~ J J J J W W 5 W J J J J W 6 d J J 16-1jE&j1qE0 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD & PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION STRATEGIC PLALNNINGZUtO COMMITTEE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FINAL WORKSHOP MEETINCEWMIU i>~Aty Commissioners WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelica■ Bay Services Division Board and the Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee held a Community Improvement Plan Workshop on Wednesday, May 26, 2010 at 12:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive. The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman John P. Chandler Tom Cravens Johan Domenie absent Geoffrey S. Gibson absent John Iaizw Michael Levy Theodore Raia, Jr. John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen absent Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Neil Donill, Administrator Mary McCaughtry, Recording Secretary Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Ph Bob Uek, Chairman absent Ronnie Bellone, Co-Vice Chairwoman Merlin Lickhalter, Co-Vice Chairman Carson Beadle Rose Mary Everett Inning Committee Gerald A. Moffatt Noreen Murray Ralph Ohlers absent Mary Anne Womble Pelican Bay Foundation Staff Jim Hoppensteadt, President Suzanne Minadeo, Executive Assistant Wilson Miller Kevin Mangan, Principal & Landscape Architect Steve Sammons, Sr. Associate & Landscape Architect Jeff Perry, Transportation Planner ROLL CALL Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta Seven Pelican Bay Services Division Board members present. Mr. Domenie, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Baron, and Mr. Hansen were absent. Seven Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee members present. Mr. Uek and Mr. Ohlers were absent. WILSON MILLER FINAL PLAN PRESENTATION Wilson Miller presented the final Community Improvement Plan. They would provide six printed and two electronic copies of the final plan to the Foundation. The Foundation would distribute one copy of each to the Services Division. DISQSSION The working group discussed roadway safety at length. Mr. Perry said according to the Federal, State, and County policies and design guidelines, when implemented properly that designated bicycle lanes in the roadway calms traffic and improves safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. He added that two ten -foot wide travel lanes and two four-foot-wide bicycle lanes would be an appropriate design for roadways in the Pelican Bay community. Gate: 105 Item #: Pelican Bay ervices Division Board and Pelican Bay Foundation Strat c Plannin Committee 6 1 1919 y y � g Community Improvement Plan Final Workshop Meeting Minutes May 26, 2010 Mr. LkAhalter made a nwbon, second by Mr MofiaN, based on egmt opinion and Fedw4 State; and County policy t+irat tJlre uaor*dirg growp xn.,Pm sappont of modfyinE &e i w&V IN reA es$AFitg twelve feel wide davaf lams to two, ten fed ride d+avd lanes wiMt four fed wide bicycle lane to produce a safer envireanunt ImplenrenAadon when dad wxid red feasid+k Seven wvlad in favor ojdke mom aKd mx v�orW agai�est tlu motion but no decision made. They would readdress in Aefaftre when more wormallon is evauew WRAP UP With Wilson Miller's part being complete, the working group discussed what they needed to do next. The Foundation would create a master spreadsheet with project recommendations, not definitive plans with a timefiwne for implementation, entity responsible, and estimated costs. With this information, both the Board and Committee could begin prioritizing their own projects and develop an executive summary that would form the basis of what they would present to the community through a special edition of the Pelican Bay Post. ADJOURNMENT There was no fiuther discussion and the meeting adjourned at 3:03 p.m eWJ. DallaAj Chai 106 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 7/6/2010 822:42 AM NEW DIRECTIONS IN PLANNING, DESIGN & ENGINEERING. SINCE 1956. 161 f B19 To: Pelican Bay Foundation Strategic Planning Committee Pelican Bay Services Division From: WilsonMiller, In -�c 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. 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. 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 Corpora l, WOMIMLane Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105 =1080M .M. •o 800. 649.4336 239.649.4040 F 239.643.5716 wasonwHer com 1611 819.1 M*.-Mmillere 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 clear 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 Sheriffs 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 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 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 amens, 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 sr M1G -21M?- ,let:: -KMMCM 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, fumishings, 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 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 Art 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. S'27MO- 5186% - Ver. f - KMAW.M MOB-068m- -0 Wilsonmiller @ 161-1 ' B19 1 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. (orix�t-jA O ice 3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105 800.649.4336 239.649.4040 F 239.643.5716 WilsonMiller.com 161-1 g19 wilsonmiller 0 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 ' B19 Wls�nMiller° 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. 161i1''Q19 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 Opinion of Probable Costs: Sandpiper Tram Station WilsonMiller - January 12, 2010 May 26, 2010 1611B19 rr • Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Storm Water Filter Flow Way Renovation (Channel Construction) 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00 IMPROVEMENTS $4,500 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Roof Renovation 1 LS $4,500.00 $4,500.00 �STORM WATER PLANTING $10,703 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: 15% CONTINGENCY: ' Design / Permit Fee Estimates $6,700 GRAND TOTAL: Pelican Bay - Design Development Level Opinion of Probable Costs 16 1 t B -19 North Tram Station WilsonMiller - February 25, 2010 MLay 26, 2010 11EMOLITION $ 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 Light Pole - Remove 2 EA $200.00 $400.00 SITEWORK $86,265 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 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 ARCHITECTURAL IMPROVEMENTS $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 -81TE 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: 15% CONTINGENCY: Design 111 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:_._,: `� Pelican Bay - Schematic Design Level 1611919 PK -3 Opinion of Probable Costs: Oakmont Park WilsonMiller - May 26, 2010 DEMOLITION 3,500 LF $13.50 $. . Item - Quantity Unit Uni t Cost Subtotal __ Clearing - Selective z — 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 Conduit for Bollards 3,500 LF $13.50 $47,250.00 Earthwork and Grading - Littoral Shelf 300 SY $4.00 $1,200.00 Play Equipment 1 - LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00 PLANTING Trash Cans 2 EA $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 SITE FURNITURE $7,850 Quantity riit - -Umt Cost - - -- Subtotal _ _ _ Benches 4 EA - $800.00 �- $3,200.00 Trash Cans 2 EA $525.00 $1,050.00 Picnic Table 2 EA $1,800.00 $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 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 Landscape Architecture 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Permitting (assumes no wetland impacts) 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 GRAND TOTAL: I $267,991 O p m p N A N 3 O y CD N co co 03 O N Co W Do co < co w w CL -� o a o a 0 00 w m° o � ' ° Co o a Q m•� Q j d `� Q lG 3 3 CL O O @ O Q) O -a- O CCDD O m CD _ 7 cr 0 6 3 6 6 n a CD `G m m m CD D CD 3 CD w w 5 m m 3 m D CL 0 Uf CL 7 Ca `G cn n (O Q w 0 CD @0 3 0 v 3 C1 O' O O O O cn cn w cn CDJ D 0 w co w CU Q w n 0 3 3 c D 3 CD 0 CD w O 0 O 7 N O d O O O W N O O p O CD CD v 41 O w m N C CD -0 W O CD 7 O7 7 -w O — W �• W w n w co (D m a to 0 m= n Ut a < < CA W CD CD � oa < � o 3 o m 3 0 (� _ O a D D -• 0 3 o S- m ca CO -n 0 o '� O CD d �, n 2 CD CD 0 O O "O D 47 2. -0 -. C w O m O m G w w X* m m a i 0 C a o CD o v v o o v„ o 0, m < 0 o < < < < m < ,< O O O O a m °< C a m O 6s 41.9 CO Efl 69 fH 69 --' 69 W EGe W ffi W EA W W Cn �I Cn Cn Cn Cn 00 m Cn -ri 00 � O -- co Cn OD p. DD O) Ul Cn Cb OD <n -> W Cn N A w N U7 CO v Cn N A " ti N m — .A CO N CD O N) -4 M CO In IV W W N) -1 V — Cn O V O Cn — v m M Cp 00 OD N CA Cn N OD Cn N -4 00 Cn Cn W O O CO Cl co O Cfl O W C) W ? 4h� — V W O -t O C,3 m to m m CD 7 O CD m CD CD O 3 n O UI N w r w 0 0 c a ai U1 16111 B19 n ® 6 W D IN 4A CCn co O O D a 7 O m 3 < 7 CD O to 3 O C 0 O O c 7 Q D CD n w 7 a' iii W a ni 0 n --i ffl 3 cn m 0 7 w 3 (O v CD N n a' 0 O cr f1 5 E9 n O co N C-1 n rv� O C CL O '* N O0 W a' v =. CA �z n 10 O O 3 0 r 03 TI O = C Q r� 3 _ n N 3 � v C1 N SU CD O O N � O O O N 0 Z O' O v (D D N O E O N X (D 3 O (D 5 (D (D x < v m 3 < i �o a m N K �• v 3 3 00 d O � O < CD CD O O � 0 a CD 3' N < N CD < N D W 3 v (D O E O 3 < 3 a CD a (U CD Vt O O < N a 3' N N D 16 1 B19 X fA W S9 S9 CA ul EA D* E!-D to Efl EA X �?. � D _N O D W O D a CDD d C�)'1 (O :91 3 CJ7 O N O V (D N� a (O O N m W m O CNO W 3 ^ W O U1 co M 0 O -1 =3 V DD cn co Ot 0 Ul 3 O) O (D U1 M O O O O O 3 O O O N O O O ;Z, O O < O < (<D O ^ < =h m O O O O O O (D (p O O O O O C Co O (D O O (D O O O (D O_ O �_ Q m O 3 O c O c CD O O n N O 6 C C C O O N O N 3 3 3 CD m 3' co s 3 m J Q o CD N o' C a s -0 v a O s X, m a D < (D s O_ a (D O < a < N CD -0 a M � < N N y N 3 N a 3 3 O o - -N co =r 0 m cT v .. CD < 6 O + 7 -+. 3 3 j 3 O O N N n N < < C. < n 3 CO O a a < a < < W 'G '2 O O W CD CD CL iU N c N C _ N N (D :0 N 3 (D N CD N �. ca C 3 in 0 S < N n (D < fD (D O O_ N 3 C CD a N < N CD O 3 3 <G 3 O 3 0o N 3 3 v. N 3 N < N v W v < N O N 3 3 0 3 -o Z2. a O 3- CD O a O O a °- v a m m m N C N Q C. CD m g o v c s z O CL 5 O =r 5r =!. < v _ CL a N C (D O ;o (p O O O O 3 O_ O CD O n a d N G) x < m m m m n 0 n 3 a m c o CL CD 3 p v 5 0 N 33 -a a 33 a s 3 a a < a < T p � N m N � N (D N y CD 3 < (D N O c O 3 D (D < O N • O_ N O W 7 Hi fA fA W S9 S9 CA ul EA EH ffl E!-D to Efl EA ? �?. � _N O N W ((A O fA N C�)'1 (O :91 co CJ7 O co O V U1 N� 07 (O O V W 90 CNO W W O U1 co M W O -1 V M V DD cn co Ot M Ul co O) O O U1 M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Co O Cl O O O O O O O O 3 a� C ccl 3 -n O O O < Q. D) M O 3 7 � S N � O O S W CD CD CD �� C o m 0 N O vi O O 3 O (D T. C (D 3 TI (D O W Oo 0 O cr DJ EA a m co 0 O N V! O (D '* O C CL_ m O O � O W a 00 �c cn v u D E O_ f) O- O 0 a 7 O o a) CA CD N CD y N m CD 3 CD v O CD cn 3 CD m m CD D . G7 m 0 c v •0 D) 3 � v O M W n `D a A N v CD CD CD CD N CD o D m m d � 7 � CD CL a o c 3 3 C7 O O C C C w -w p O p < CD CD (D (D x (D Q C COD K m 3 0 COD m 0 a v 0 d fD 7 CD CD CL W v w 7 O N v fl. O CA Co (D 0 O a W it X C CD 0 CD X X X. y U3 N Co 0 �• 0 O O m 2 m CD .7 CD x o C o N ((n N D CD O M <• CD 0 C_ O 3 N B19 0 2 W v v z v W D f7 L. -n O < O 3 CD CD x N 7 CL O c CD x x CD _3 a O CD y v 3 CD n7 to a o Cl) a m y CD CD CL D7 6 N a � O •a s y CD 2 X � C (n O X_ CD y C O CO M C p y D CD 7 flI CD N O C O 3 !A K O N 2 N CL CD x C CD r <A D Z v W ° va ° ° y 0 0 W D b9 EA m D E O_ f) O- O 0 a 7 O o a) CA CD N CD y N m CD 3 CD v O CD cn 3 CD m m CD D . G7 m 0 c v •0 D) 3 � v O M W n `D a A N v CD CD CD CD N CD o D m m d � 7 � CD CL a o c 3 3 C7 O O C C C w -w p O p < CD CD (D (D x (D Q C COD K m 3 0 COD m 0 a v 0 d fD 7 CD CD CL W v w 7 O N v fl. O CA Co (D 0 O a W it X C CD 0 CD X X X. y U3 N Co 0 �• 0 O O m 2 m CD .7 CD x o C o N ((n N D CD O M <• CD 0 C_ O 3 N B19 0 2 W v v z v W D f7 L. -n O < O 3 CD CD x N 7 CL O c CD x x CD _3 a O CD y v 3 CD n7 to a o Cl) a m y CD CD CL D7 6 N a � O •a s y CD 2 X � C (n O X_ CD y C O CO M C p y D CD 7 flI CD N O C O 3 !A K O N 2 N CL CD x C CD D O. Q N n m CD O y v O_ e m m N C CL Cn C'D c c 0 O CD N N a S 23 a N 117 (!7 A A 8 N CO d7 co v CD 0 0 7 O rr ill CD n O (A '+ T O CL C CD ri � N o a. O a -v CA v �z 0-0 O CD 3 C!1 C O W 3 " a O � C O < Q O � CD O O � a1 ' CD N Cv CD � S C11 m CD (n CD N o_ �0 CD CD v N v N O 3 <A �09 fA bi '' b9 EA ffl EA 69 ffl Q4 &i ffi Ql EA t-A ffl --+ W O O) N ? A fA N CT W fA (n W O) O Cal -I 40 to W N 00 O) -� -� -� to CA Cn CA M W •P co O C70 .-1 1- N N o N N N N O) W W U7 O) W A O) W 1 N A IV N) (D Cal CP U1 O 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 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O o 0 O o O O O O Co O O O o D O. Q N n m CD O y v O_ e m m N C CL Cn C'D c c 0 O CD N N a S 23 a N 117 (!7 A A 8 N CO d7 co v CD 0 0 7 O rr ill CD n O (A '+ T O CL C CD ri � N o a. O a -v CA v �z 0-0 O CD 3 C!1 C O W 3 " a O � C O < Q O � CD O O � a1 ' CD N Cv CD � S C11 m CD (n CD N o_ �0 CD CD v N v N O 3 P v v v v v 00 � ao ao au nmc;000 CD N N � w v CD Z N O CU S = O cc D 3 a O W O � l 0 O C CD CD 3 CD m " N N 0 = fQ = N � o N. N N CD G=, O _ C2 N CD N D CD v CD N O c 0 _ CD CD a 0 CD CD Fr CD _ 0 3 n, 3 X _ CD N (Q _ (n CD 3 m CD (n O c 0 _ N D a C Z 0 s CD a m _ CO N CD D v � v D > C) O m N a v rn 00 _ N v CD CD 4*, O fll D Cv N _ O_ Q m 0 CD O 0 m 0 _ cn CD (D a' CD 3 Z W o n c S CD =r W W co CD CD CD 3 3 3 CD CD O .0�. O _ N O Z D M CD m o Sl _ CD N O C O _ D a CL CU _ 0 0 a CD C) U) O _ m CD a _ m v _ CL 0 0 c 3 ;R. m a N Cl) N CD 3 m N 0 0 _ 3 O O c N a CD 3 O CD v d CD N lco: B 19 �C v v v: v m D n oaDX T o CD v C) 3 m CD CD z N D 3 v m v v ff f? A D 0 m x a D `° 3 69 a a a CD m o iv 3 69 < v C0 S CD a 160 fA 'Ge -CA N 3 0 fe V) f Co i y N N O CD 7� N _ A CC] ffi O v CD = ll C O CL d s N a _ CO v X 0 CJt M = N. O CD C O 00 O W O O A N W CD N v o W = CL -1 N CD 3 O Q CD d (A U) N *1 W CD O O O O O 0 n O m O 0 a 3 O CD 3 O IV V W Cn � V cn Cn CD 3 m CD (n O c 0 _ N D a C Z 0 s CD a m _ CO N CD D v � v D > C) O m N a v rn 00 _ N v CD CD 4*, O fll D Cv N _ O_ Q m 0 CD O 0 m 0 _ cn CD (D a' CD 3 Z W o n c S CD =r W W co CD CD CD 3 3 3 CD CD O .0�. O _ N O Z D M CD m o Sl _ CD N O C O _ D a CL CU _ 0 0 a CD C) U) O _ m CD a _ m v _ CL 0 0 c 3 ;R. m a N Cl) N CD 3 m N 0 0 _ 3 O O c N a CD 3 O CD v d CD N lco: B 19 �C v v v: v m D n oaDX m v CD C2 CD CO _ CD CD O CD 0. v v CD CD CD m N A (b CD CD N cn 1 0 cr 23 cr ffl ffl CD A O 0 co 0 O O N O C gU CD 0 O 0 N a M cn v 0 -0 o CD v 3 3 m CD CD 0 N � � 3 Y, 0 7 0 ff f? A cn 3 fi a ? 69 ffl ffl 4.9 a 69 o fA 160 fA 'Ge -CA - ffl fe V) f Co i - f EA E 0 A I ffi 0C v CD a) W O N Co A• s N cn -J CO v CJt M V O O m O V 00 O W O O A W W W N v N W Cn -1 O CD W -� Cn CO -> (A N N *1 W C9 O O O O O 0 -1 O m m 0 0 0 O Cn V O IV V W Cn � V cn Cn CT 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 O O O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O 0 m v CD C2 CD CO _ CD CD O CD 0. v v CD CD CD m N A (b CD CD N cn 1 0 cr 23 cr ffl ffl CD A O 0 co 0 O O N O C gU CD 0 O 0 N a M cn v 0 -0 o CD v 3 3 m CD CD 0 N � � 3 Y, 0 7 0 C CL cn 3 O a ? a � o 3 � Z 0 CD u: 0 �0 0 oN I v O 3 N O� 3 m v CD C2 CD CO _ CD CD O CD 0. v v CD CD CD m N A (b CD CD N cn 1 0 cr 23 cr ffl ffl CD A O 0 co 0 O O N O C gU CD 0 O 0 N a M cn v s V 0 D r N O 00 01 18 19 0o D N N 161. v 0 w a y 3 a � a O G O (D CD CD CU a m 3 — � O fU 0 03 o c o v o m 5- n m c 0 p N C1 Cn c m m 3 � � CD N O DO o C O tS N Cp to CD < y N O 3 0 O 3 fD CD 3 O G N O y C] CD CD _7 7� (O G (D (D N O 7 CD 7 CL m 0 CL CA n a 3 pig o 1p D a m 7 a G (D N 0 3 a ID ID 0 0 a p G CD a 0 a v x fA EA EA W fA fA N O O fA A 00 o v O EA 00 O N w w w O Cr -1 m o O m CD O Cl O O C> Cn O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 o C5 v N t'> PP O "S O a' fD n O CA .r -n O C CL O � w o' a o z 4 ono ch 0 a �z n O 3 3 C ert O CD 3 CD O sv 3 3 �1 A .D 3 9 'D V _ Background J-eo'fl .11 .0 9 1 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 Services Division, both Owners and operators of these public area lands, this set of improvement plans and 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 • Preservation of Property Values within the Community • Promote the Quality of Life in Pelican Bay 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 workgroup formed by the Pelican Bay Strategic Planning Committee and the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. While these two groups are both represented by residents of the Pelican Bay Community, their charges are 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 +his workgroup and provided comprehensive direction to these results. The following eleven elements were studied and have been addressed in the plans that follow: 1. Traffic 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 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area I Background Text 10 v E 0 CL E cB m C v a� 1 16 11 B1 9 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 in a flexible and phased manner. We understand that many items beyond the control of the Community Leadership may affect the ability to move projects ahead or delay them where necessary at any given time in CL 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, 2 preliminary conclusions and finally the implementation plans and associated opinions of cost: Implementation vplans 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. 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. i 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. 4- we i i 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area ! Background Text V t 1 { { 1 1 e � { �c t c� v a I v. � t C 3 1 i 1 t 1 e t t • a r , f` 1 i 1. C t a { j G'1 { t as �rv�tfas Community Improvement Study Area I Community Plan 0 E 0 CL 0 cb- Ng 1 •�i Y Q a q m IZ G' d T la Ui p C V �G U t^ U f I � I c� v a I v. � t C 3 1 i 1 t 1 e t t • a r , f` 1 i 1. C t a { j G'1 { t as �rv�tfas Community Improvement Study Area I Community Plan 0 E 0 CL 0 cb- Ng 1 •�i Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview 161 1 B19 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 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview n a as E CL E M C v a� a i e� 9 v E v 0 Q E a r6 b C V aJ L Iraffic Analysis 1611 1 9 B 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 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. 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 ( Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview E E ns M eg v QJ CL ■_ '6► F81 a r� C +J C a) E CL E a rB M c c6 v 2 i i :r 1611D B19 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 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 1 Biv Lighting changes will provide the most dramatic effect within the Community. They will define how Pelican Bay is used after dust; 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 ighting 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 1 Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview 10#1 a� E 0 CL E v a X_ f-81` ■ v i c i C E O 6- CL E a ra c u v L ii r ■ i Landscape Analysis 1611819 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 Goais Overview US -41 Berm Analysis 1 161 1819 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 ,n 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 1117 ONO C a cu E E e� a R` :9 f Community Berm Analysis l 6 I 1 19 I I B cu r8 a a a� O E a m u v 2 I\ i �r S li 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` 819 • 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. Ln • Pedestrian only zones that include rest areas and overlooks should be added to this facility. ra • 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. • 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. cant ilevered look -out platforms that do not impact the preserve or the mangrove forested QJConstruct 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. • Install bird houses and osprey platforms to attract inhabitant birds. • Reduce the amount of sod and replace non - native and ornamental plant material with native plant fa fa material within berm areas. as a 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 ')evelopment Code). The Pelican Bay Improvement Water Management Plan shows 8' drainage an swale along .ie west side of the berm. The area east of the berm is not considered a preserve but a detention area. AN, A 05/18/2010 Community Improvement Study Area Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview ' Iram Stations Analysis 16 I �• ® B19 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. C M C 0) E ar O O_ E c6 M C u i M 1 t i 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 Gals Overview Signage Analysis 16 1uv 81��io 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 J Community Improvement Study Area I Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview if C ae.+ 4J E E fu V v d ar r6 C +r E E c6 m C fu a IS M s r r Parks Analysis 16 1 1 B19 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 We have ex for 16 ! �' 1 B19 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 i 1' 7 . lik waft Q) RM Public Art Analysis 161.1 B19 V C i C 0 E v 0 E r6 r6 u a� L ON s 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 ( Analysis and Improvement Goals Overview n 0 3 3 c 3 0 rD 3 CD R N ,-+ C- 0- D rD rD v n 0 3 3 -o Wilco miller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 Project Improvement Plan Introduction 161 1B19 The Pelican Bay Community Improvement plan is a community ide endeavor of which there i� Y ere 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 (1) 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 0- responsibility. There is a mutual benefit to The Foundation and the Pelican Bay Services Division to C implement these improvements in concert with each other and as seamlessly as possible. QJ QJ 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 E larger project areas. The boxed in letters represent computer graphic images also in this section of a existing conditions and proposed improvements developed at each of these locations. ro co 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. W) NK 40 a_ N 05/18/2010 n 0 3 O G 3 5 r) 0 K LA M CD ly 75 1A 0 witswNfiler Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III ,(, M SEAGATE DR. - - -- �_l 90 N o.� c ❑ 021 i p M8 Amzmp� O ❑ ii m y <. m 1 1_I 1_ LAUREL OAK DR. CA ❑ U m 'p g z Z ' 9 z ZKz -� o '� 1b:N zcZi ?K po i C, w E' P () ! n- �z 1 PELICAN BAY BVLD„ a ^ I 1 tl to 1 1. 3 r l a , Z Dmmm a -- ---- - - - - -- a ! =eom �, I n g� 1�1 � n a 11 I $ 11 •' I 1 ! I I •• oq i 1 Ali Il • i g fl I N I 1 4 iGULF PARK DR: 1 11 � --- - - - - -- 1 ` 1 n I I I 1 i I' i - ----�— _ --- -- 1 1 tl d ----- ---- - -� 1 i 1, GULF PARK DR i i I 1 I •� �I L (j MATCHLINE -- - - -- ; -0- -- - - - -- % --- �' U — U 11 2 1 n 3 3 3 0 B !D n 0 3 0 m v m Cu 0 m z 0 a wilsonm ller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III has sad rJ LL za _ $�3d� �v: l 1 8� K w5 i g� ig ai s� 1 R Community Improvement Study Area Proposed Conditions Pelican Bay Boulevard South Community Entry F7 ON 41 C CD E v 0 CL E m a 1611 B19' ■ N i r C N E Qj O L Q E J L L Community Improvement Study Area I Proposed Conditions Gulf Park Drive Community Entry U R OQF�� L I 16I 1gjq':j Wg� } i$ ono �W \ \ mow$ W = \ t Z 2 Q O '^ a d \11 Community Improvement Study Area I Proposed Conditions Gulf Park Drive Community Entry U R OQF�� L I 16I 1gjq':j Wg� VA \ \ mow$ W = \ t Z 2 Q O '^ a d \11 Community Improvement Study Area I Proposed Conditions Gulf Park Drive Community Entry U R OQF�� L I 16I 1gjq':j Community Improvement Study Area I Proposed Conditions Pelican Bay North Community Entry ® 1611 m a m CL a aj E O CL E a� m m m i V N d I INS= Ln CLs G cu v E v 0 a E n ra u i L s� L1 I� Community Improvement Study Area Proposed Conditions North Tram Station Area 1611 g194 g� i g i �z >a 0 So M r L1 I� Community Improvement Study Area Proposed Conditions North Tram Station Area 1611 g194 CA7eA'V ee'D, § Community Improvement !s6 Area Proposed Conditions St. Raphael eak � � \ 2 c / E \ E � § £ , � � � « � 16 1 1 B19 M . ;§. » § Community Improvement !s6 Area Proposed Conditions St. Raphael eak � � \ 2 c / E \ E � § £ , � � � « � 16 1 1 B19 V) M .c c CL c v E v O Q E A R n c V v 1 3 16I 1 619 Y 6 3 F Asa Community Improvement Study Area Proposed Conditions Sandpiper Tram Stations Improvement Study Area Plan & Existing Images 3 16I 1 619 N rn i 0. !_ B A N !_ ci 0 Q E T �6 OD u ir 1611 ; 1 ZI 01 �f 01 C ZZQ c ? =I 7 Community Improvement Study Area Proposed Conditions The Commons moo I I � _. �. .- • k� o� Y z 69 CLI Lui - _ {-�12i i �1� !: I� fG :'• �I oaf° LA N rn i 0. !_ B A N !_ ci 0 Q E T �6 OD u ir 1611 ; 1 ZI 01 �f 01 C ZZQ c ? =I 7 Community Improvement Study Area Proposed Conditions The Commons N rn i 0. !_ B A N !_ ci 0 Q E T �6 OD u ir 1611 ; 1 I i Community Improvement Study Area I Proposed Conditions Ridgewood Park 3 aW 9h; zmga Roos �j�y �tW.a".I i � °g3� a° i �l °0O °"3 d ' ta° a° Zo2 3 W o1 °E 3 a� S L2g �J 1611 gi rr d 3d g3 -H �5 k fill 1W f o o .1ei W/ o €w <.Wa Community Improvement Study Area I Proposed Conditions Gulf Park Drive & Rldgewood Drive Intersection 1611 v aj 0 :M a � � I m I � I 0 11M rJ N m S c m t C E 0 CL E m n c m u v L Community Improvement Study Area I Proposed Conditions Pelican Bay Boulevard & Gulf Park Drive Intersection till11HINfi 1611'619 aN <3 UZ °sue €9 HUEN 10 Community Improvement Study Area I Proposed Conditions Pelican Bay Boulevard & Gulf Park Drive Intersection till11HINfi 1611'619 \ �. \ k §§ R z� �§!§ � )\ )$ $■2 \302 }! ®H §( )¢ ()) ( e; ` ->z ; I * \} (» % k\ §�R) =�e°§ ` \ 23§§09 � F � \ 2 ;M29 § k / ] ! \ § \ \ § J �\ 104- 0 \ I � { \ q 2 \ ru i W- . � � 16 k NA- z \§§ lI Community Improvement sA Area Proposed Conditions @ate Park Area 0 \ I � { \ q 2 \ ru i W- . � � 16 k 33 S n i1 Y C� C 7 Q L C V 1 u Perimeter Sound / Security Improvement Study Area I Perimeter Wall Study Naples Grande & Serendipity v v� Y e; E ° oq .o .N C 'Q N i O N L 'O a= E E o o a T a, 2 O a v N Y al in O Q j J u a °- � L � a s� m o � E m o a w 'a; m C � 3 v � N = Y 5 Y L 3 N O � � N d _ O v , a � 4 N O u_ a Z O H N CT Nv a 2r p a c o � a o aa, � al aj C t 9 O O � `�- a a = w m � rn �� s i w� a, .z 0 1611 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 lM Before After 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 Ln E 0 OL E a m rc V v d I A X 1611 B19 1611 t19 ' All r a qk� Before After a nz M Myra Janco Daniels Blvd. at connection to Waterside Shops looking north c U — Establishment of territorial reinforcement and enhance entry aesthetics v i V. 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 0 Before After Entry columns at intersection of Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive Before After l .gewood 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 Qj M E 0 4 a ra ca C m v d I 1611'819 ® 9 v m r6 L1. CJT E O 0- t � . E Before After a ro 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 a_ lift- 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 0 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 R ' e After Oakmont Parkway hedge — Street trees will add to aesthetics, environment and break up hedge view Community Improvement Study Area I Befeore and After PM Qj Qj 0- E a rc m V CL CL aft US 161..1 i 1611819 Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan – Traffic Concluding Improvement Recommendations and Opinions of Probable Cost (calculated in may 2010 construction rates). v ^' -A: Provide consistent signing, marking and use of RPM's for roadways throughout the community. Ln s CL 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 CL 4, Alternative solution: This is a roadway maintenance item. C v Phasing: This wort: should be done at one time. o Sequencing: This work requires maintenance from time to time to replace RPM's that 2 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 a RPM's. Whenever pavement resurfacing occurs new pavement striping, markings and C I 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. I 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 l 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. I D1 -C: Relocate to the north and re- construct the deceleration lane and realigned curb cut to access the i N -rth Tram Station parking lot from north bound Pelican Bay Boulevard traffic. Proposed Improvement: Replace the original curb line in Pelican Bay Boulevard with a i 16. new curb line and drive access that is in alignment with the new parking lot drive way i 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 I. 05/18/2010 � 1611819 Alternative solutions: 16 1. Close the current vehicular median turn lane and return it to landscape while maintaining the existing crosswalk location. Opinion of Probable Cast: $ 182,000 2. Maintain the current vehicular median turn lane but remove landscape for better lines of sight. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 5,700 Phasing: This is a one time project and based on the Owners chosen solution should be done all at once. Sequencing: These projects may also be done within other specific area improvement projects for mid -block crosswalks and the North Tram Station improvements including street lighting and landscape improvements in the median. Dt -D: Install consistently finished, signed and marked existing and proposed crosswalks in the ! community (9 intersections; reference Intersection Crosswalk Layout plans; refer to D 1 -E for mid -block crosswalks). 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: i i 1. Same as proposed improvement but with color concrete pavers in lieu of clay brick. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 742,500 i i 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. i D1 -E: Install mid -block crosswalks in Pelican Bay Boulevard at Community Amenity Destination points (5 locations; reference Mid -block Crosswalk Location plan). i 05/18/2010 i ■ 1611 g19 I 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: ra a 1. Same as proposed improvement, but do not include the cobble stone band edge with the clay brick pavers. C Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 220,000 n- 2. Same as proposed improvement, but install precast colored concrete pavers in lieu a✓ v of clay brick as noted above. E Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 247,500 > 0 3. Same as alternative solution #2, but do not include the cobble stone band edge L g with the colored concrete pavers. E Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 204,500 4. Install only Thermoplastic paint in a high visibility piano key striping pattern. IM Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 115,300 Phasing: These projects can be phased however we suggest that little phasing or time a 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. i 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. i D7 -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 0 with colored concrete paver crosswalks in the intersection field areas noted above. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 496,500 ri 05/18/2010 1611 g19 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. Sequencing: This work should be considered to be complete with the crosswalk improvements in these intersections. D1 -G: Install fields of clay brick pavement across the three roadway entries into Pelican Bay from US 41 at Pelican Bay Boulevard north and south as well as Gulf Park Drive (reference pages 19, 20 and 21 under the Project Improvement Plan section Q. 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 150 feet. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 463,000 Alternative solutions: 1. Same as proposed improvement but with colored concrete pavers in lieu of clay brick pavers. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 429,000 I 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. i Sequencing: These projects may also be done within other Community entry specific area improvement projects for landscape, lighting and signage. I D1 -H: Install fields of clay brick pavement across the roadway entries into 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). i 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 I 05/18/2010 1611 a 4 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 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 I N ra rS CL c ra CL N E v 0 L Q _E a cc CO c ro V a 05 J1 V 1611 g19 v n n v 7 l4 O CD N N Q D sv 0 CD 0 H r O n O "OF ®� n v m Q o n a w Q 10 D 9 0 ro r1 r Oc o m x T H m d 73 7C' r Z rt m C O0 /:.... z n N z o 3 > A F� D 92 K 0 D yc W O � m D < C � H 00. C n a" r o Z 3 to 3 c r D 2 { O LA 'Ala k s o $ yF Or� FOFZ F w1wamiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III 71 Qj v fi n• n v 3 0 rD 3 rD r+ 0 a D rD v O rD m rD O r LA r+ IO n N CL E O n n n O N CA G N rD n 'i• O N O O 0 0 0 0 D M (D m 9) — v g W W W W rD C" CO W Q W Q W Q W C• N G• rD W .=e• '=r p CO W W W z o S O =3 N z O S 3 3 W O S � S a) 0 N _� 3 LQ rD m rD N o rD O 0 O p m v n p rD N D v s D 1611 B19 a IS 8 o 0 O O O P w v D (D m 9) — — g LO rD C" CO CM CO fD .=e• '=r p CO W W W W CO W Q < W W Qj a) \ rD Q n n Q S s - CD R- FL D O La 0) v N O rD ` °o 3 o 0 ° 3 O v 0 ai O On O n [D p 3 CD ro' U7 s on o CO C rD w �+ m O O O P w v D (D m 9) — — g LO rD rD v O fD .=e• '=r p CO W W W C' � 'C W W Qj a) \ rD < n n Q S s - R- FL D O = ra 9' \ \ ` o 0 0 3 On 3 S ro' on o O w �+ m O < v p v 77 < <• p _p G N G (D M //I�%II/IIIer Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 M --A 3 I La 0 CD CD 3 rD Qj Qj 0 70 0 Ln (D a- 0 I Q 0 (A O Wbomiller ra -- __- � 16 1 1 B191 P lid 11 CLEN —PUCE —ACCSSO it BEAGWAtA Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase Ill n� v W v W O Q fD 9j Q_ Q_ tQ rD O O Q- M /II miller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan i Phase III ®O, -W, n� a, W v w O C (D G v Q 0J d ID cc O a rD G 01 Q WRISOIM/ller bx, i I I� i I I I I II \. I 1 1 1 1 '�y 1 ��x O g L\ F� N� I ©O \\\, O Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III E9 W fD n� 00 Qj 1< CO O C m G 0 Q n v O n O v Q W11 MMer Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III 09 M 13 n� v O �D ^Q fD G fD v rD n WISOMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 n� v .G O G sy ^Q 1 �l n O 3 3 O 7 Ln I 1 tj I I I I I I I I a I I I 0 I �a I � I . I I m� o�g I o I m �og SoS oo I I wyy w DD �O I I °O _ ©O €F l I I , i I I i i i i I I II, I I I +� I I I i 0,J)Z ; I Z Z.- K z C Cy I I j I 1 y / 1 o� N � i Z Z Gy) I O �F m ' / WR MMer Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III 09 M -o CD n' OD Qj 1< ou 0 C r� v Q Gl c v rD .I/ gOMNer Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 M n' v W v w 0 C v Q Q 0 0 Q fD WR/SO11Miller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 0 w -n v 0 rD rD N fD N N wilsojimill r Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III 09 TMOI M. n' ni I 00 v w 0 c Qjrp v Q Q 0_ m v v D i4 SII miller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 M ro n' ❑, ED w 0 CD Oj Q W rD Qj n Qj v Qj-o v Qj WISO11MMIer I IT I o� I e I I� g I i I I I I _ I •� A D' �� I o� 3x o _ I � oo gqs a �® f ?S >° yy AO M Ay I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I/ -I' I I� II I II I I g 0 o-a I a J1 M/ Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 DI F), Cu D W v W O C rD G v ^^Q 1�J z O v 3 N v O wiIsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 / B19 n� ' F n< rD I � 201 v°v y z r < r II �o I Zo r r r r m i I g I mp 10 - I I I I 90 � OS� O m < y ® I R Zoyy w= rA . as I I T I 000 H PF 'A 00 I I 20 1 OT y 1 A°mr I I + I 20 m0 C- 1 I 1 C50 mzm I I I I I I z0 Co I I I I CO o� / I �Z z0 oy 09 N I I >yb' M M 1 I I I wiIsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 n� v W w W O C (D Q z O S O 7 rD CD 25-.- p�0 mzm �> Co 0-4 Op DZ z0 0 CO A= y� M M 1 \ \\ I-011 1tj 1 �^ 1 \\ 7FA SO g =5 m a<� IM] aNtia�N1odNLypN Wilsomiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III a \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 II 1 I I 1 I I I I I IM] aNtia�N1odNLypN Wilsomiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III w v rD n' v CO v 1< W O C v Q -T- o) 3 3 O n 77 O v 0 rD W11SO Miller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III n m n' v Qu v cc 0 c ('D G 91 ((Q O Qj 3 0 `G 1 / , �J i i i i if I - sps - _� —_ I I �vMN2yd l/./pW)NO yn I I I I I I � I I o Cn I I o I I. I C )0 AZT I I p.m Z� I K D I co �p I �z m Wi/somiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III Lnuuiiy %- V11U1L1UF1b Nroposed Clay Brick Crosswalks 05/18/2010 Traffic Improvement Study Area j Intersection Treatment Alternatives 0 ff--Doll 011 0 0 E ra u Oj n. f .R► Pelican Bay 6 B19 v 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 FJ: S C v E GJ E a ra V i a� El 16111' B19 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. LnSequencing --- 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). E Proposed Improvement: Each of these is site specific and based on the location of the ® conflict. Q 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. m - - Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 800 per stop sign u2) 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 CL 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. Daft Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 205,700 ($ 35 /If) ft 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. s • Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 557,400 ($ 40 /If) 05/18/2010 1611919 Install asphalt pathway to a maximum of eight feet along the north side of Gulf Park Drive; l 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 v ra limited pathway realignment. -C 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 -- ramps and landings to cross walk connections if not complete already E a) 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. CL E D2 -D: Replace Single Family residential -neighborhood asphalt paths with five feet wide concrete finished sidewalks (reference Pathway Improvement Recommendations graphic). m Proposed Improvement: Install concrete sidewalks on Ridgewood Drive, Oakmont Parkway u and Green Tree Drive (does not include potential new sidewalk along Oakmont Parkway R.O.W.). CL 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 ■j 1611619 4 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. Sequencing: Relocate this pathway to the edge of the right of way easement and /or acquire 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. Q D24: Maintain the secondary, non - boulevard entries into the community with the exception of item D2 -E above as asphalt finished pathways. aJ ® Proposed Improvement: Mill and resurface asphalt pathways for North Point Drive, Hammock CL Oak Drive and Crayton Road. E Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 228,800 ($ 21 /If) a m Alternative solutions: Replace the same pathways with a minimum 5 foot wide concrete C sidewalk. v Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 316,000 ($ 29 /If) 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) lift 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. NX 05/18/2010 1111 g19 10 Future maintenance and improvement guidelines. Parks and recreational athwa s p y systems ems 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 m 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 n5 . CL 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.forniture cut sheets Qj graphic). Please also refer to the longer discussion of site furnishings that accompanies the Tram Stations E section of this report. a Oj Long term plans for pathways includes the connection to the US 41 proposed Collier County pathway illustrated O E in the pathways master plan for the County. a M cr ai lb 05/18/2010 _0 0 rD 3 CD :3 Ln C 0- rD 0) 0 fD 3 rD rD n 0 3 rD M n 01 1-1 Ul X, E, W11SOMMONIF Pelican Bay improvement Plan I Phase III E9 I j� • a OR0 z II • ono �a J _ l ( C j 1 v - i 1 rD _ - Q D 4� o ;z z R �• o � a ,..� v o �a z a i Di � I D - Pelican Bay Improvement Plan Phase III h G� C ❑J O G N 3 rD ,-r N r-t C Q D rD rD r s n Lo rD n O 3 rD r+r O n c A c a 3A[3(1 31V!)V35 vs' F, O1,1011 H�y3811 /8a3ONb^ G m° gs D� 2 m �[ 1 = v 3 Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 @9 ° ,µ* 4 Victor Stanley Furnishings shown represent standard selection of street and site furnishings throughout the community. Refer to Tram Stations Improvement Plans for more information. 70 T� E O CL E M� u qqW 0- r� O O CD E O M O u r` X t 16 Victor Stanley Furnishings shown represent standard selection of street and site furnishings throughout the community. Refer to Tram Stations Improvement Plans for more information. Recycled Maple Recycled Cherry Recycled Walnut Recycled Gray NAohogony Wood Ipe Wood < Wood and Recycled Slats "' l , Printed color representations vary, 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 over time. Block White Red Tavern Square Gray Blue New Teal Green Bronze Silver Burgundy Green 8 VICTOR STANLEY, INC.® Toll Free (USA &Canodo):1- 800 -368 -2573 4 Eleven Standard Powder Coat Colors Printed color representations vorl contact us for color swatches. We also offer other colors fincluding the PAL range) at an additional cost. °roduct shown is DYN -SD•36 (patents pending) with OPTIONAL convex lid, see poges 2227 for details. A � D' 3 G � n °1 _5 rD 7 0 O a LO v Q rD v v C� G O N 3 J V) Q D (D fD 91 n O Ln O n O J Q. rF .r) M n -o OJ , O < 0 3 D N J J OJ La 6 N (N N Q O N N a O L. O O J J O rD n v O N 3 n c Lo � � J J v J rD 4 ZZ 1 � czi 1 1 I D r �/ 40 D A z rn 0 D p N O ui I f d / I � v / / Ky0 Ov czi czi � n ^ ? r ci z D rn / / v jm O_ °� Z D 0 m p -0 CI Z ( v z p z D o A D p D z = p � � O O I DDZ Ds w n m< p O �Dm D O A m 0 D N KNIS0.7miller V.. N N O S a ;I- LA. N J rD 01 T O n v O � t 0 0 s rD N rD O • � D o a G. N ? o J rD 73 3 N rD o o M a r N v C J v D J J Q J L'. 3 M O m M v v n r 3 Q r rD 6 N G Q. 'D N N a 3 0 Y � N n rD v 3 J O N to J _ N O � O v O a r+ J N J d 7 O � v 7 + O O O N a G Q N_ !D � � v J � n v N p QCD v' rD rD d Cy h rD rD 0 o ti & p J O J J LO fD o h � N h � � v O C `G CL Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 0 0 Ln �t y fiR Q In 16111,' 81 c.� S� V Q �u 0 2 m OF Uj w All IT U5/ I t5 //-U 10 1 Pathway Improvement Study Area I A ®A Ramp and Sidewalk Compliance 7 77 C C N O Q C fu M r` u a 1_ t�` LU VI OM N Z LU Ln ! �o LM a U5/ I t5 //-U 10 1 Pathway Improvement Study Area I A ®A Ramp and Sidewalk Compliance 7 77 C C N O Q C fu M r` u a 1_ t�` 0 Ln B d N E Qj O N CL 4 wiiuiuvn�o - ivviui uani rafMniy LUt 1 I V T72Y nanit iy impicivement txampie - Hmena isiana Niantation Village 05 18/2010 Pathway Improvement Study Area I Pathway Edge Railing Improvement l 164 � 819 0 Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan – Lighting Ej Concluding Improvement Recommendations and Opinions of Probable Cost (calculated in May 2010 construction rates) a) 0 D3 -A: Replace the existing HID ballast and Metal Halide Light sources in the Boulevard street lighting s 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: $ 7121585 ($ 3,459 /fixture) E Alternative solutions: Same as proposed improvement but with Metal Halide (MH)' fixtures in lieu of LED. C. Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 506,585 ($ 2,459 /fixture) E Alternative solutions: replace the concrete poles in the Boulevard street lighting >, M m scenario with new smooth tapered shaft and decorative base. Install 30 foot Hapco C: York Post to receive the Sternberg Omege /R 1527R LED Fixture and six foot CA roadway u arm. v 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 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: $ 645,987 ($ 6,946 /fixture) Alternative solutions: a 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 10 1 i 019 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. N Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 241,445 ($ 2,596 /fixture) ra 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 s 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. . E D3 -0 Move the existing double fixture light poles in the three entry drive medians of the Community v o 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 E Community with energy conserving LED fixtures and bracket arms (reference Roadway Lighting >` Diagram). _ ru M Proposed Improvement: Install Sternberg 480PM Bracket and Sternberg Euro E -460 LED c V Medium Fixture on 18 foot Stern berg "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 (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. Q( 05/18/2010 161�r B19 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). M 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 _(a 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 QJ E Alternative solutions: Same as alternative solution but install the Stone Light fluorescen > bollards as used elsewhere in the community. 0 Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 412,000 (entire project noted) E Phasing: This is a one time bollard lighting addition project. Recommended bollard light m locations should be further once street light improvements have been implemented to verify pathway lighting needs. ra v 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 fami 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 b considered and added to the proposed street light pole improvements. Banner arms would need to ft—cft meet wind loading criteria and we recommend that the electrical outlets be added high on the pole for maintenance access by lift only. V 05/18/2010 f6(.f B19 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 �C9 CU Ln ra .0 CL c c� a. aj E v 0 E m c v v Q� W r— LO 3 -9 0 CD 3 (D In rt Q_ (D w ;a O CQ QQ QQ I zz t •8 D; NOO F mil Dpi Oz cr E 2- o ru:�aan: our tJs .0 "T o > > a it I . tea 0 zz t •8 D; NOO WIL"WOOF Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase ill R9 M F 4 cr ru:�aan: our tJs .0 a * Rs ALL-. ,ter;. bq� C"a WIL"WOOF Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase ill R9 M r s 0 rD Ln Q D ai v D n n m rF S r c4 S l4 "0 fl) 'GGCr 0.: A U P m D D O 2 c A � 0 O D0 "s =o �s � K 2 C G7 L1 FEL14lf BOV $N� $ii � Q .o _ y GW Vprcox S n_ GWrP4tl:011 s �1 /8912[1• 9° a �o or �arvoen�ara�n.,,ti . WISOill illef Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III V9 i 6 I B m Ll O M C r n A Z O. N n D rD S O r ZA A Xing O z D = D D C 3i =0 Cr AD DDv r f1 so° m o G1 O my OD r-ir z CC A GNm� D r T A z X V V1 m v� v v` z Z z } G1 O z •o r D §: D D X �^ r Z W 2 +V D Gl C L) :T D =w h O C o D me $� O n< � r ar�W H = c - fD Z�0 a 3 ��D �� z0 �o�mmz � W.�D ,..� zAo m= N m { P1 Q c^> u0i D I r m no T yi Z 1n v mDCZ L1 S g X _ ~O H - z�a� z� .t m n 7J 9r nsi PELICAN gAY g LVD. s " l4 Q - S LQ wilsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 161 -1 B19 Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan - Landscaping and Irrigation 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 Ln g 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 aJ sod in this area with low drought tolerant groundcovers and accent trees (maintain E clear sight line visibility clearances and caliper standards). > Opinion of Probable Cost $ 212,000 O CL E Phasing: This project should be implemented and brought up to current FDOT and >% County standards as roa-dway/ traffic improvements are implemented. m Sequencing: This work should be considered to be complete with the crosswalk and C 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. aft Sequencing: This work may be considered to be complete with the crosswalk and pathway improvements in these areas. �= D4 -0 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, .r'O =� 05/18/2010 161:1 B19 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) Opinion of Probable Cost $ 122,900 EPhasing: These projects can be phased in over time. QSequencing: This work may want to be coordinated with adjacent landscape and L 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 ra calming, reduction of heat island effect, pathway shading and aesthetics. V i 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. WAS i S 05/18/2010 v Q. r) n N 3 0 CD I r-r C Q D v V) m m 0 Ln 0 a cQ' v o' D -D v Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 E 0- Ln _0 0 rD 3 (D V) C- Ln (D rD r+ Co (D Ln 0 > :10 M a. CD I 61' > 1;0 M :0 'k �47 Ii I �l ^ \�. t1 ' Vw WiNwMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan Phase III M ml l D of .p I' r Q , i n M 3 ► 0 CD 3 r M rD 0 t r rD 0 E QQ Qj 0 D rD a) v I 1 , IiMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III C11 CD C > rD a) LA 0 0 (D (D 0 71 1 I- r) Ci _0 (D 3 _0 0 < M 3 CD C > rD a) LA 0 0 (D (D 0 71 1 I- D > I w "Sonmitter Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III no � Ln Cli CD _ � CA � ~ � � � ' ^' / � / | | / / � | ./ /! � � \� ! ! | / � ! \ Al S. Ogg iqg wilsoffmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 090 Q. CD CD 0 (D 3 (D rD un N (D M rD V) 0 0 O (D Di C 0* L) > M 0 -- --------- `l ,�W� Iii > CO US 41 wilsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 0 N 7: i fill r., :'H A U-I g US 41 wilsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 0 N r Q n v rD 3 O rD 3 !D r-r LA h C Q D rD rD v rD rD rD r+ m rD LA 0 LQ' Q, o' D rD rD v Wilsoilll/II/P% Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 r- Qj LA n Qj -0 CD 3 -9 0 rD 3 lrl CD CD Q) LA rD (D rD Lon 0 CL Qj 1+ 0 rD 0) M IM(rn z. 5z N a��o F., us 41 •.. M 0 r) —D- RRIVE Z WilsonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III (a 0 v Q n v CD O G (D 3 (D Q (rD Q) (D rD rD rD 6n O O_ O M m D \1 1, > m m Z A m v I OAKMONT PARKWAY I I 1 I I i wilsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III V9 0 � Qj _ � rD CD rD _ � rD ~ tA CL --- ------ _~ ��~ \ � ------ —__--' ' v^ ._---�---�—��] -------------- --_— . �--' � i -----' WilsonMiller Pelican Bay improvement Plan I Phase III ARM v^ ._---�---�—��] -------------- --_— . �--' � i -----' WilsonMiller Pelican Bay improvement Plan I Phase III r Q LA n Qj rD 0 G 3 CD 7 Q fD LA rD rD O Q LQ 0) O� D m v D D = m N o D o � z y G i i Q C I I I I rl I I / / I- I l �h00 s 9 �$ o g�� A �V 4`\ wil- SOHM/IIP.% Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 Q LA n n v ro rD G Q D rD CD rD rr N 0- 0 m D 0) Mi Di N Ni I ,I j �I i� I.' y'l ! \C \ ;: ,A 16 1N i t \ ill moo I ` i .' (! all WiIsonMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III a r v Q LA N 3 O rD rD 3 rD r-F In Q D rD M L' Q, Et o' D n z, r) C v o• Wilsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III 161 1 B 19' y x m o m go gomn �.•< ZI ti m ID D o a xa � jj ID il) m m CL N y N �� T m X j x r N l an d ° 7 O n N [Oi N a 7 c o C ' m F o o m m o CL co " 7, x 0 ;Kx m T m C7 7 y n o 0o ojr�O ,N � o n o n a n A Ip W Rao � Dp c N d G - Q • » 11 [ID C o 0 N ' N 0 m oID Er 3 r CO V I 11 N ' 7c O _3 3 N A > a B ,3sn � � o MID mn m N , o v Q C W ? N NIO CD _ 1 o N 0N N N 0 D Q A N N H W d C1 S •S. O1 ( Ip K 3 j ° S X mm N m CO -O o m a �. k c y d y a n t° m o x Q m m o'm �o c7o K _ A0 d N 3 k o v m 3 N< m m o a C CL O C f1 d X, ran O' CC] "O M 0 N N �• Vl CL L (n N p (O !0 N (p 3 N a a G) W 7 d C N C 7 O a n a m a 0. y o o o m ° 9 o M m m D m 3 00 0 x m V .Ni j N 0 n �. CO N o T `, y N O S C ID N a aN m n � M_ ?N Oh o m N I m S Io � -m CL o 9 •, s o CD o: ID 3 M v mm1mmD� 11 11 S ~~ .� C m x ° �am�� m O r 3 f0 N nN N N �m IM CL N O .1 1 r O? N 0 N m d 1 m CL b4 C N V r 0 o a m Io a c)mmDo� > > N 5D 3.m m �'m n i 'O 3 = m v m d 'a m 5 o m m M mmmDm II m m II .`-'.< n a n :, o N 8 CNi m' �•iv' x m o� a a �-4 ,1 II li �� m r'� o o a % c @ m m m o x- OD v o •N°- k °o a a °^ a m N I00i� ] Nd g' 0 o oMCD 111 a r o v D'D'S n m ? a v�d Z G) \cD3.c' n ? ZI A m 3 n Mr- " nni c << oCi M k 3 m a O c i m m fD CD n m t4 w ro - 0 x o 7+ S m N M ISO, x N 4� y m N d �< Li S G �` j A N N ryj w N d — O. NN N V P] m O W N � N N 7 d b C N a o a Ca 7 0 v Wilsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III flJ 7 Q N n v !D 3 0 (D 3 M C Q D rD w v lQ 0 0 0 D Ln Ka S Ill 16 11 19 l m P. �t a N ) a) m � O t� o u m N o D TO TO o �a o as 3F3 33 ro 3 u m o m v m m m tO m d d z z w j � D N A V r Cn CD o m N N A Q .CO W -- --- "IM - -�.a • N dam y y Q _-- - a C. g °' 8� ' <s E �4 0a �y a FD- -r3 d 1 Q Q d w c1 AM iv j° .. S R. S tp t0 y 4 � d � 11 Q. G O G :3 p m y (• N c a 7 O S k k O N S to=n rn• 3 O rn stn j D 114 m m o ,ry 10 ~• 7 tip t� 7 •CU _n W N G O ° N O G O .. d 3 Z3 W N 'o'N z a m >> �• 7 y W ? N d N d , Ka S Ill 16 11 19 l m P. �t a N ) a) m � O t� o u m N o D TO TO o �a o as 3F3 33 ro 3 u m o m v m m m tO m d d z z w j � D N A V r Cn CD o -- --- "IM - -�.a g — _-- - g .. 8� <s Ka S Ill 16 11 19 l m P. �t a N ) a) m � O t� o u m N o D TO TO o �a o as 3F3 33 ro 3 u m o m v m m m tO m d d z z w j � D N A V r Cn CD N 8� � fill .. 8� E �R $G5 Cn N d HR# O wilsonmill r Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III r ai 7 CL Ln n O rD rD Q D rD Qj W H1 O rD a) CL D 0 D ro W 0 rD D_ 161 1919 v S 00 O Q 7c- 7" fD m pl ID N 7 `'C 3 Ol O m <. O fll ry O 7= p n :y O v s� m 3 L Z O N 3 7 7 G O rt n N' O _ n � S W 7- N �' rD Q rD 1 h O1 01 7 LD 7 0- 9 7 7 rD O o. o O rD 7 - - 3 O N h Ol 0 Z w Q 7 p Q Q ID Wi1sonmifier Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 E r v Q n v (D O rD 3 rD Q D rp v W (D O �J D (D 0 rD D m VO CD 0 D 1 0 G) o ID m Q 0- (D o a D D C LO n M v m v v ro 7 fD 7 p Q_ rD Q_ M DJ 0 fD �Q Q_ rD Q LQ 7 7 ('D Q_ Q_ N <. g lD c o (D 3 ° ID 3 � o rD S S n (D Q_ O o O 3 N fD O ,y n O v a N WISOHMIIIP% Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III V9 0 r v Q r) Qj v rD 3 O N 3 fD N C Q N v CO ID O N OJ D W 0 rD D_ rD W 0 161T g19 0, m :3 I � Q Q ID D n ID 0-0 °- O La ID r- O O ^ �. Q O N O N v p — Q N 1 h '<D. _ 5. 7 rD D G r N D rD ti O D _ O m n 3 (D � fl, 0 O rrDD v 3 :3 3 N �LQ � � a O v � Q = G w O C ID v Q v g 3 CD Q 0-0 o v N wilsomille% Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III 09 E r v Q n n v O G (D 3 (D Q D CO !D O (D CL D i9 W 0 rD D ° �j D Ir//"Olmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III no � v m N 2 rD N 0 3 rD QrD -n v t4 Q 3 C. c 3< O N of O t0 N O_N v N O _Qp 3 rr'D 0 Z5 Q n Q j < CL w m 3+ rD ° rD = O 0 0 O Q a LO :3 LO c n N O W r D 2 ^+ n S O O n N < 3 � O Ir//"Olmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III no r ni Q LA n rD v rD 3 O rD rD (D C Q D rD W M (D O rD 91 rt (D ID 0 D 0 D 61.11 B 19 III Miller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 E °- O O< < _ 6 O O- J Q N N CD fD C /l O 0- rD !2 � 7 J' C N CO O p x < v J. fD < Q v+ .+. N J O � — 3lQ � 'i 0 (D Q C- rL 3 . o- N r) N J to O N 3 rD rD J !D rD O N N O zw l0 of C p Q O .� J rp C p LO =• rD J g° J O N w 3 a M n O O n N fD 0� J" 3 O N L2 O J O � ID d n fl' J LD �' S rD Q vJi �.lfl N S J O III Miller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 E N 7 I? LA n D) fD O tD 3 M 7 In C O.. `G D 0) n, 70 M n 3 3 !D v O Qj •O• r � _ n u n o � ? A B` v 3 g O •2 a 1611g19 < D z = = O m M D 0 > O m O O C C M 0 0 0 z z D D z z z A A m m O A A D D M O O - m T D D D m m O O O O > >< A < < < < m m O O 0 < < < { m m m m r r- r m m m < { m m D A A 0 ® ® ® O O 8 8 , ,© • • x x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • r r O O O O O O O O O O O O O • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x x 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ® ® ® r r ^m n n a amm a a m am ^mm n n 3 3D � m m.A�mA o c ,a g g,o m 5.m m °doQ d d m e m 0 o om o o� o? o� m m r PAS • m o v IX M M Cn (D r CO CO C W U) Z D r (7 C_ O D Z n m W1,1461611901 Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III R9 M I I B19 W A m v 'p C ; O N Z S< nA-I > - �z =�cp mz T�mw� x <0 OOr��D vZD ° I - - DzOD�O 2 �1 ° Z z m O _ I \ r T Z P n " O O T �m CXNGm� - N�ANZV - AZ Az O C \ N wGl DD ,� I 1. ♦ _ x n A A 1 r 1 O O O O n p W rO A s cZF°=lw� -D-I mO N ZZ z --I G'1DAZ -�---{{ t 11- rT+m�nz 2ZDr02� CD p ~O ' - 00-M n z c Z O = m v m _ 1 zpDm n 0TZz M _ ' y S z A . i Z O Q m op��^m a �. n Qj m 1 0 vc 0 - 1 / Z x �LZ•1D 0 z T T m � � �z -n 0 Gc1„N � , /G'p C �O 2'E A z N Om 0 n D Do D ZD O G N 0D W p pfD r D w v C f { m r rt p w / ` 2 m Z w �Z `� v / T C A D pz a 1 OOC Vmi OCR z_vn 9 vT z �o a D } 1 N Q - OZD =L) 0 G0 Gil m O D v { AO Sri � N�ccO OZ� D� s Q \ N n ❑J 7 rD 7.7 O n 0 (D v o O N WilsonMiller G nzm ° { < O�vC o z tnD2D z m y CSAii a vTi <� N vmi -D-i D T D m Z a _ = Z�A D c0WE WE z`2 ziz T N -i H in Llp DA^ /1 i IIOC` ^ �l �i F ®Q� y OG 'ii ^r' Un < p in W K _~ D n Z o oo, A Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III on 16.1 1 B19 COLLIER CGUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE � Section 4.06.019D.A Sight Distance Triangle Diagrams Street Pavement r 10' m I I - (A I I ............j:....... Right of Way 11 Swale I........•.... (Prop. Line) 1.•.•.•.........::. I :::......... . Sidewalk Driveway — cy Landscape 8' ht' min I d Buffer clear trunk 10' - C - I C Triangles of Required 30" ht. max. Cross Visability _ (Hatched Areas) vB'rC:y •3f 10 rze Q C s� Area of Required A z'. `} •�. Cross Visibility •'•'•4v H#s YK "iii f 6 8 clear trunk 30" ht. max. 3' a Driveway 3' sod sod 10' Edge of Pavement 10' kU�• �i !Ufv �. -,: Sec6Gr .! Jr ,v @Vv fbEl Street I 30' I =' Swale " "" Extensions of Rights •.•- I••:-.- I of Way (Prop. Line) Walk Landscape Buffer 30' Triangles of Required Cross Visability I (Hatched Areas) FILE: v SIBUZ1IM 3-29 -OD ''�-A� �il $c' ':.EF`•-SFC Luf SECTION IV — STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS August 15th, 2001 .f COLLIER COUNTY RIGHTS -OF -WAY ORDINANCE It CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS HANDBOOK 05/18/2010 1 ru f6 a_ .F, E_ N E N O Q E m m C m Li CL Big 10'M LESS TO SIDEWALK, 10' m LESS TO CURB U'i=TY 1611 X19 AREA CONTA043 SIDEWALK, PAVM AREA,OR uNbmROUNb 'U?IM ---7 �j DEPT hl DEPTH tI Roof' BARRIER DETAIL N.T.S. TREES PLANTED WIIIAN 10' OF A PAYED AREA OR ROOT SAW -FER tiTiLM INSTALLED PS: MANUFACTURER'S SPECIPWAITON FOR A MD41NUM DISTANCE OF 20 L--. 15' FROM %fDGE•OF. Bt9T!_DiNG / TitEE ROOT f/ BARREER TYP. ROOTSARRIER ZONE: ' i 15 2O Rpo 1 ALL BUILDING, SIOEWALK,OR PAVED tbGES OCCURRING (1y, Wr 4tN THiSZONE 514ALL BE PROVECTED FROM TREE ROOTS.RY THE PLACEMENT OF A ROOT BARRIER ROOT BARRIERS $HALL NOT BE USED TO "BOAC -IN" TKE ROOTS. PLAN ROOT BARRIER DETAIL N.T.S. PREPARED BY: OFFE ROF GRAMGSAM TSO*A 6AL SUPMRT GOM7AUNnYDEYdAPA1ENTANDfWVW .UIENTALSE MESDIVISSON DATE:16/2C05 fLLGRoWBarNaDetpW6 05/18/2010 i v n rD 3 O rD 3 rD V) C= Q v 3 3 fD CD Q r-F 14- C) 0 m 0 a 3 v La m 0 -o n S D (D a`o o J �3 T G W 0 0 0 CL m G) '- v cxi ;0 c 0 x M M m in Abbreviation v - 3 d 2 m 3 sr o _ - o O i; O C) ° _ a. r1 o P O m h m Latin Name - o u" n - 2 3 n 6' & A m - o _ - N d rn O rn m in A d ° m O N rn = O O A m Common Name v 3 o. v m D m m 0 G7 S 3 3 IR Avg. Mature Height .2 02 _ _ o Avg. Mature Spread Form 3 ? 3 3 Flower Season s a ° mn o _ Flower Color �. 3 m � < < z < z z < < < < < < < < Native � m m 11 m o m m m m m o o LeO af Persisitence � 3 3 3 m Growth Rate --I p z• r r r r Water Requirements m ry '^ x r x x Drought Tolerant ID rD x< x x x x x r Salt Tolerant 3 3 Sun no < < < < < < Partial Sun < Shade 3 E, r1 Soil Oi rD rD Olt rD M Known Pests N oG n3oiw m mm ii r v 0 M °° -� �g� a s n - �.G "a Notes a H m m° Q m O m o H 2.a� d sm r $ sz £'3 m� -73�a� 3 EL - _ - 'm'E o °v 3 m Er m�� m maw a.N3 yam Dym o�mi�3 a� mM - °- n g SL - OR _ LE 3 - 4 : mz , F 3 �3m m °o 2' ° ma m - 3�+' m2 m 1O _ f. v m m- m� �_ o o 3 - - m'c m = x °m ° 3 H o Wilco %miller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 F-- v Q r) n v CD 3 0 O rD 3 rD Q D rD ED n O 3 rD O 2 Q ij E h moon aSF0 <x�r J3 zr CD v 0 3 CD v N Q fD !D fD < = o 0 m v Abbreviation o 3 o v H Latin Name - - 3 ° 3 _ 3 — n w 3 Common Name O u 1 nd Avg. Mature Height a - _ Avg. Mature Spread Form — Flower Season rp v mm Flower Color < z < < < z < < Native m o o m m o Leaf Persisitence rp K " " N m m Growth Rate --I p _ r r Water Requirements m � x = Drought Tolerant y rD _ K _ K K = Salt Tolerant 3 3 CL < < Sun ro M < < < < Partial Sun Shade CL —w 3 tn o — ° F Soil m rD Known Pests ff �D e m w 3= �mSmof N _ a Notes o° 3 W N _ m ,- N� ND ma �o OR 33 �3F° = 3 o = ada --_ ol v 2 D — 3 m3° ion o�ma. wlsoloA fier Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III R9 v Q !'1 97 rD (D O G 3 rD h Ln C Q D N v CD n O 3 3 Q rD Q _r h d 7 N O Q T fD Nmmon E_ <x3r �mF '3 O >y 3 7 N 161.1 g19 wit- 01%miller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III 0 x v m g m $ n z o r o o Abbreviation n n m m o Latin Name = 3 c a - - ol - 3 9 = = 3 c _ n m 0 Common Name o y £ v 0 $ 3 C) A 3 = - 3 v - J, _ N - w Avg. Mature Height - Avg. Mature Spread o ¢ w 3 2 N ° Form -_ 2 � 7J< xl< m -3 m 3 fn 3 A< y 3 NUr 3 A 3 3 flouter Season n n n l n 1 D O < v 9 m - - m - m - - < "= Flower Color . DJ < Z { < < Z { { Z < Native m m m Leaf Persisitence S N u, m m T Growth Rate s a p r K = r Water Requirements � a$ x x x < Drought Tolerant 4- rD Salt Tolerant Q Sun N Q < < < { < < Partial Sun L' OJ Shade n 3 0 Q „ o � `3 H £ Soil ii n tpy 3 m Known Pests N `^ " 2 v; m 4 a, O 3= 3 _ m Notes m ��. 0'o. �3� 3w F- m 3 __ £ - F m& - m m 3 - v ^ - EF vi 3 5 3 3 3 _ _ @ o - wit- 01%miller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III 0 N Q n Sv rD O (D 3 rD 7 r+ Uq C Q D W ;)0 (D r) 0 rD 0 Q rD 2 r LA h W rD rD T iL LO mon: $N «gr 3 n 0 m C ID ID O_ 3 O 7 O a rp g z M z m 9 r n < - < m o abbreviation v v Z Z g 3 a - % 2 2 Latin Name 3 - - - 3 3 ' a - - 3 = ET = W o G1 r/1 ,ZI m 2 0 o f (n _ W Common Name < - a H < r m - F _ °• N Avg. Mature Height Avg. Mature Spread Form v < = A < N m 3 3 ° < d Flower Season a a a rp Flower Color l < < < < < < < < < < Native sL EA M rn Leaf Persisitence N " 9: Growth Rate S r = r Water Requirements 3 S _ = Drought Tolerant CL fDD 2 r 2 2 = r 2 2 2 Salt Tolerant Gl Z rZ < < < < < < < < < < Sun O rD C Q < < < < < < < Partial Sun 7 r) < < < Shade n 0 Q _ .0 - 0 o Ho g ° rD r�1 _ o - m N' m 3 .. Soil rD - N Known Pests n zO C) :FO 3 z � L, 3 r v ? Notes 3 ?3 =.3 Fs aNl m 2Q i3 a. 3 - G 3 ° A �- _ 3 _ - - - i o w m m 3 - c 2 F _ - H 4 - ANA _ W11SQIImille% Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III Q n v rD 3 O N 3 rD 7 L/) r-r C= CZ D v r) 0 3 rD Q rD Q v r+ r Ln .+ D 0 N T C ro v ro OC_ Q n 0 rD m m v m 0 n� v_ z Q v u? rD rmo�� 3 wilsolumiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 n v p o m > ? z Abbreviation N m m 2 Latin Name 3 _ 3 3 — - 3 (7 fn f/1 m o fn 41 g, fn v W _. Common Name _ 0 m 3 m n m N aH u+ m _ Avg. Mature Height Avg. Mature Spread N 3 3 ti 3 m 3 3 m 3 m m form N ro 3 OX m _ — Flower Season al 9 l� n A @ - " Flower Color z E � < < < < < < < < < Native y m m m Leaf Persisitence °' N K K z K E Growth Rate 6° O 9: Water Requirements v _ = Drought Tolerant a Q- rD L) E K Salt Tolerant Sun s 2 < O. < < < Partial Sun < Shade n ® Q rD a Soil CD rD Known Pests Notes A 3 0� ° 3 S3 _ a i 5i - F5 g Er - - '3 xi `H° 3 3o _ N - S2. m P 3 ME 3 wilsolumiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 1611 g 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: $45,000 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 a c a� E 0 CL E a ra M c V a� a 0 1611 B 19 PQ 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 ro up to 54" of new planting fill on the US -41 side — install the new concrete panel wall noted above atop this new berm area and re- landscape and irrigate additional berm area. C Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 1,983,500 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 re- landscape the additional berm area. Opinion of Probable Cost: ' $ 1,877,500 i 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 roimprovements recommended in this section. D5 -D: Add a perimeter /barrier along the Serendipity and Naples Grande common property line along Y with acoustic treatments on the Naples Grande side of the wall to eliminate bounce noise to the pool a 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. baft 05/18/2010 3 rD 1+ ul 0 C- Q VI n h O (D 3 CD C Q D �o v D v 1< LA L v D 161 1919 !/ ilsoolmil,er Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III as !D 3 rD N In 0 Q N CD n C 3 O rD 3 rD 7 V1 C Q D rD [D r G fl/ h 97 N q-0 -0 Q o � 3'�° 3 rD — 3 � 3 rA' (D 0i n, 3 - n � O � 0 ds O 0 3 rD v d 0 7 N I C O a C O 0 �• 3 4 to C 7 N 0 Q N N � N 0 N > j c m ? °; 0 0 0 C M L 7 3 rr) 0 N C O rD CD 0) m m 3 L rD n h ID CS r0 G "F 2 0 M v < Q m � ? O f C I'D N C Ol N n -* N O N _ C ^. C O_ � CO O) n_ 'o O Ot � < O !v M C NO V-3 rD O N rD N C O 7 -0 Q O N rD ;t Q rD C C to O 6 O � d 3 —(D 3 rD rD o, Q U n O C 3 7 C C o, C CL h N N V n N O N ' N 0- n N O O D D ' D• H O O- 0 0. C rD h 7 n rD CL &, ^ rD o.. N rrD O_ C (D 6 N CL o 0 Ol Ol C O C- 7 M O 1Nii rD N IM VIA 140.00 O c 120.00 r0 100.00 001 A m 80.00 2:-1 z_ O 80.00 0 OZ 40.00 x 20.00 OUR o pZ Do j D c=9 X�� rD m S m 3 0 0 N •(D c - C N3 3ylu<) cm <°-m�ni� rD m v� �k(o 3 O '1 m O 1D j y C! <D C 1Q O j d(D Q.�1U�t LO rD < O �OdC1AZFN O rD —. Cr O O Q O S to f�D6 n0O mn aN C O O C n : N A 0- v 0 a: 0 •.•• S1Y (D Q O �. O. 6 O N D O~ 3 9 3 O N A p 100.00 O O O O O o 20.00 90.00 80.00 r 70.00 O x m 60.00 ZO Z0 60.00 O M- 40.00 2 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 WEST E.O.P. OF US 41 IM VIA 140.00 O c 120.00 r0 100.00 001 A m 80.00 2:-1 z_ O 80.00 0 OZ 40.00 x 20.00 OUR o pZ Do j D c=9 X�� N •(D c - C N3 3ylu<) cm <°-m�ni� v� �k(o 3 O '1 m O 1D j y C! <D C 1Q O j d(D Q.�1U�t 120.00 �OdC1AZFN O rD —. Cr O O 100.00 to f�D6 n0O mn aN 000 60.00 a: 0 •.•• S1Y (D Q O �. 0 O 60.00 O~ 3 9 0 A 40.00 o 20.00 0.00 NEST E.O.P. OF US 41 NEST E.O.P. OF US 41 Wilsonmil Gr Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III -o ro 3 1+ (D V) O C Q N n 0 m h C sz D 0 v 7J rD n O 3 E3 n 2 v k O C W1IsO11MMer m v A O m C LA I CE 0 _ c z l D O z - O mel I.o I D r. n m I i �9 ! 1. m - 1 _ r 1 z 0 sr mom i 0 O 0 - _ C - u 1; - � p Q 9' of Q / m iI o I� ' m 1 6 e Q 1. D �e - cCii g Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 rD L/, 0 0 3 O_ L rD C i 3 0 G N rD 7 In .+ C Q- D 0 v Ln D (D 0) O D M W11SOHNA 1 l \ 1 1 e- I 1 1 7 - _161 1 B19 r �---" ,c r- may► �f �� ' ` � t�� . .1 'I ; Ir( +j �• -. 1 r s'��' ski. - . /. -' _ 1 -.i 1 i ,'� • i •� ��CKx'iCia 1 -jai 1� Y •1 1 �� Y Y •t 1 •' 1 '. 1 ,, I� 1 J 1 t, 11 1 O z l.' 0 j' al! 1 d 1 I !�, ••l !Y�° ^fir r - � t w.r :. + •, r m m �. rf a 6 g g E2 �, . \ \,� •\ \. �'� '' �� a" �> `� bra , ter Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III (fs 3 ro r+ M to 0 Q In n C -6 O fD 3 !D In C 2 D 3 to ri- Q D rD ni 0 - 1 S�}1 1 �Y{ I b Wilsonmill r Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III 9 O Fy# a sm si biz Sz yi �� ft �` � A ` f� ;gle' m � l Wilsonmill r Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III 9 Fy# a sm si biz Sz yi �� ;gle' Wilsonmill r Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III 9 _0 rD 3 CD (D V) 0 C rD r) 0 CD rD V) lD (D zy- rD (D 1, 16p-j", B19 4 lag N --- - - - - - - - ------- ---- ---------- q ---------- :jj �,� r 4. q, ------ ----- 1 n z Z." W11SOUNMer Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase Ill R9 M rD 3 rD {/1 O Q Ln CD n 3 O < rD to C sZ L ri- i rD Oj T O WIw1Mlller r i- '%'R�"'.�•'•_� 7, �.I`_. _ 't i�'— �I 1. II :i• `a 1 � i Jif 6F J rl ' 1 1 - - - 5 � 7.. { `1 j •1 - 15.1,1 � .^ II � i 1 ; •�1� fy y--. 1 I- j; o- ,1114 it 1 ( � �,il l�1, � �� • � I m Z I 5P 5 iJ (111 ,1 m v - i g? yi '21 g!i �ifi iIIY �a �$ oc 2- $. F� _ - - - -- = 1 F 1 � Fit + -i i i. • . Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 M <� N O- < f r fp _ fD � Cr 'z fll L 0 O n ❑ n sc rD C rD n o r rD - ha � n 0 3 a � rp C n) 3 ID ❑- rt Q 'ID `a < rc N S V N N CL O 0 rD 0 tj ID n rD O N n: EL v Q (� 0 ❑ 0 S n < O Q 3 S N < N N : G C O N v O W N N 7 N N v C N (p Q p o 00 0 3 3 ❑ 3 N O Q 3 0 fD m O Ln N s O rD rD 0 � n O Q rD N rD Ln N Ox O' n 3.�. rt n �G O + 3 3 N D O 0 0 Zy- � O rD G' �E 3 ID N N h 0 O 6 N ,ti- fD rD C Q s 3 D �s �2 n' n' (D 3 (D .+ fD r In rt C) 1< 1611 B19 " i 1 j 1 r M. (!l YI M,C z. fl 0 r G O wilsonm ll r Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III 9 Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan – Community Berm 16I 1 B1 9 Concluding Improvement g p ovement Recommendations and Opinions of Probable Cost (calculated in May 2010 construction rates). Ln a 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 c a) Alternative solution: Berm repairs due to poor asphalt conditions are necessary but might E be able to be done in the phases listed below: ai ai 0 South Berm: $ 161,300 Q Middle Berm: $ 79,700 E _North Berm: $ 165,200 ro co Phasing: Potential Environmental permitting may require a limited phasing opportunity for C ro these efforts. South, north and middle berm sections are recognized in this report however U u the north and middle berm areas may need to be done in unison if stringent timing of QJ Environmental permitting requires limited phasing. CL 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 -B: Install seating areas and wildlife overlooks along the leng# -�pf 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 X— cross section work and asphalt re- topping. M ONE 05/18/2010 0 1611 9 �.9 . PQ 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 Community Berm Planting Sheets). a) ru 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. ra Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 109,500 ra a C Alternative solutions: Do not add these elements. a, Phasing: These improvements can be added over time in multiple phases. 0 L Sequencing: Consider implementing these improvements in conjunction with berm E cross section work and asphalt re- topping. M Future maintenance and improvement guidelines: co ra ra Remove exotic and other ornamental landscape material that has encroached or been planted in association with the Community Berm. aJ CL 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 0 3 3 c f+ 0 v v 0 G fD 3 (D 7 D rD ro v W 3 v II/ mille r Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III V9 M n 0 3 3 w ro 3 0 c w ro 3 0 ro 3 rD D v z Qj I CD 0_ m r+ 0 n 0 3 3 0 Wilsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III V9 E n O 3 3 W 3 V) O S W CD 3 3 O (D 3 D v z v LA G) v Q m 1+ 0 n 0 3 3 0 1 LA Ni N II.Vn" IIIP% Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III w WilsgMMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 C) O 3 3 c W n Fi 3 O (D 3 rD D rD v n 0 D 3 0 0 LA v 0 SL it !/ M o 0 Zo x me Az Q0 if T N0 z 1m it z N Dm I rZ �D i� ND i N - $M n = o W N r mp- M Mao 0 Z N o - - -- - - - -- -------------------------------------- -- - --- ----------------- MATCHLINE --- - -- O n ( V mph M z Wo m A vm D r W o m Oo< 3 roA om Cm WO< Mr- xo N r mp- 10 Mao o Do P CO Z n ( V mph Wo m vm CCE v a o nz Oo< am m�- Da m A a z a `\\ A 1'\t -- --- ---- -- ---------- ------ --- - -- ---------- - - - - - -- MATCHLINE --------- ---- --- -----\ - \ --- ------ - - - - - - --- -- ---- -1 KAY-w9miller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 n 0 3 c 3 rD n v W 3 3 0 3 D ni v n 0 3 3 0 0 1A V) v Q m Qj v Wilsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 N (l \ f6- O \ 3 \,'\ O \\ 0 {�\ z o w \ z N Q D 0 to � m � y O 1 `\ W 3 C 1' W t. Z 1 �1I O F: 0 ' \ CD \1� v VI Q - D m -;� A - O - - v O ` N �' O W 1 O �h to z S n ` m x --- -- - --- MATCHLINE -- 3 ---- r1- ------ - A-1 ,-- ----- --- ---- - - ---- ?l-'t' - -- - - -- -' -- Wilsgnmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 E I 1 9 191 m Z —i j A W M � l � - - - -- - - =- - 1 - -- - - }----------- -- -._------------- MATCHLINE --------------------------- - --- --- - - --- ,h Z -0 m W 0 f A CO 0 \ X - A .. M m m O \\' Z (l \ f6- O \ 3 \,'\ O \\ 0 {�\ z o w \ z N Q D 0 to � m � y O 1 `\ W 3 C 1' W t. Z 1 �1I O F: 0 ' \ CD \1� v VI Q - D m -;� A - O - - v O ` N �' O W 1 O �h to z S n ` m x --- -- - --- MATCHLINE -- 3 ---- r1- ------ - A-1 ,-- ----- --- ---- - - ---- ?l-'t' - -- - - -- -' -- Wilsgnmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 E n O 3 3 c W 3 0 S W fD 3 O G fD 3 rD 7 D v v O ro ED ED 3 1+ O Z O S fll N WIIsonmill r Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III V9 n O 3 3 C (D 3 z 0 rD W 3 O G 3 rD r- f D m v V1 v (D v 3 0 z O S Qj v 3 W I 1. 1 1 1 1 WV, RN it] 1I t 1 1 1 � I t I 0 m z M O 1 1 1� 1 / t 1 1 1 1 1 I Iz o �A � 11: 00 om SO J �1 a n .1:.. O . Nz ov r °_ �Z M 1 � m r y I 7 1\ �Sr r � r m � O O m O Z A !/' 2 CO z A / p W O V o m A a Wilsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III R9 0 �Sr � r O O D V A i W �. o Wilsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III R9 0 n O 3 3 rDC W O G (D 3 (D 7 h D a) v (D v 'S 9l (D r+ N (D -h N M z � o Q� C LO N S •* N O A (D S d r. f=1 S rD t LA 2 S 'a• 1 3 OWi = Es m o �+ c �+ C m CL =1 v °- d o_ o '* c S O rD 7 n m CL L9 O O rt =r 0 s O fD =' n 2 O La. `• S C n CD D CD �C CL d 0- U3 a O C 3 S O � N =r d n = O S d d O Q W Q � D 'o m 2 I C o � T C r @ T COC 7 O NM Q A � 2 Q �. N S d � C d (D Q D M D O A O G1 N d m D C ro 0 v o- ro 0 3 �c O O_ O V1 LA. 2 D 2 c< n O _, a m ICU A O as LA C CD m N N M 0 2 LA D C rA D Z M O N� 2 n Q 0_ 0 C U2 S w O rD a n m 1611 619 WN.Va / ille% Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III D 2 O O Z 2 0 r G) c K Cu O O A 1611 819''1 o < :, T _F� I "Sogimifivy Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III IMIIIII R9 a 0 3 0 (D 3 (D :3 (D 0 (D 0 0 rD V) > rD ni 1611 819''1 o < :, T _F� I "Sogimifivy Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III IMIIIII R9 a 1611 919 Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan — Tram Stations T_ Concluding Improvement Recommendations and Opinions of Probable Cost (calculated in May 2010 construction rates). v 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 Station to provide separate cover for the Tram users remote from the storage building ra overhead door approaches. Enclose and separate the service building from the tram a waiting areas and provide for a wide enough turning radius for the largest of tram C a) wheel tracking in the tram cul -de -sac. Purchase a matching family of site furnishings to E include up to four — five foot benches, a message board, ganged trash and recycling ai 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. CL 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 16 foot residential LED fixtures noted in the lighting section. m Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 180,000 C Alternative solutions: u 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 tube implemented with the new driveway curb cut and the cross walk improvements in the area of the north Tram Station. D7 -B. 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 95 enhancements, screen walls and .gates to the new trash, compactor and tank farm NQ 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 05/18/2010 �j ® 1611 B19 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. aU Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 898,000 s Alternative solutions: — 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 rs o.. furnishings and install one Handicap g 9 p parkin stall and concrete side walk access to the -1 ramp on the west side of the Tennis building. E Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 72,600 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 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 CL 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 aft 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 05/18/2010 I611 B191 architectural marker to the Community Berm and Mangrove Forest system through the back bays and to the beach with a style that is invocative of the natural areas the Community Berm and Boardwalk Er meander through. Standing seam metal roofing improvements contemplated for the Commons building should be made to the Tram Station Structures too. v 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 a 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 a) source for all of the Pelican Bay community public area needs. http: / /www.victorstanlgy.com. Public E bidding requirements, when in force, shall note this as the standard for installation of the same or a equal products to be purchased and installed (reference site furniture cut sheets in Pathways section). o 0- Pelican Bay street and site furnishings may vary in color, casting and model choice by area of use so 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 u 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.ial_upottervonline.com. 05/18/2010 v 3 3 0 G fD Z3 CD l/1 Q D N Cu M x LO v n N' v 3 -n v n CD Ln r- 0 n v h O v O �k ® , D w O 0 -n f o 0 1 1 t 1 i 1' 1 1 l C R { 1 f t t z O a s O.p 1 t. 1 'l t 1 i i - 1 i _ 1 °s Z. m� AN a t 4 �t i tt t { o z k 1 _ a > d � ♦ Az { - t t { t t t { f oy a _ byp Z D � Wils®1]miller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III zn Ci x C, 1611 B19 0 Zu C1 > z o 3 C) age > 7C3 0 < rD 3 (DI z -N. < 0 z > rD 0 0 :3 V) 1611 B19 Do C Zu C1 > z o C) age Ilk Do C Zu C1 > z o WilSOMiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III 1611"B19 '1 D «N vco C, 0 ( k1- 1> 0 A 1 2 0022 1 z 5i 03 21 j 3) ' Z Z z J,, 1> ti C1 ♦ 0 z N 3 IM o�= A 3 OT. �f�♦ WW, 3 o�= A 3 <- 00 2 9 3 �f�♦ 0 rD 3 A0 (D > Q Z T r, Z M =zj C, V) V) ri- O wilsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan Phase Ill ai 0 CD 3 rD Un C. Q D N Q C- M D n (D 3 M z Ln 10 11�'g3. *. 0 ® C 0 0 0 m On Q Q v m m o =` 3 rD 3' y o 7 v= �,. 3 '+ (D Ct rD n 3 72 .+ m 7 � o 3 7 0 O ,7_,. n M S 7 rN-F of ID N O O � 3 N � — p p - O 3 O- j' I N. H 3 G to j 3 °° n 7 w a 3< v= tO .O+ < Q n �•fu C N QrD m v o O H -O C �w I-D 7 7 n > N 7fl a73 lQ O-a Qo O3 �� v IA fll 3 Mo$ ° N N lO 7 7 O -a. °i— (D N Da CD 3m fD N r7-F C 7 C! tp N N I tp T ry 3 3 tM 3 ao 0 O— h 7 :3 Q3fD 7 o �,o — ti. to rD o °' ° o 77 �. �3 n o 3 73 3 a U < 0 to 5' c °: rD rD 30 �. w O C �. O v �' Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III a fl, 3 0 3 rD D C Q D m Z O S v 3 N r+ N O 3 16I'kB19 M M O rn >O >m z m z p n D m � r �D_f0 m M to D m O m A D�DX O0G)v, r 0 1 •' Y M C z y ✓ �^ m f � x D J 13 V, zo 'n 0 = D O oDv z�z0 0 n O v m v xz -4z o L \ m m r •� �. � � tnDmv m L\ v ►t_ / �y...e m I/ A r t / �'- i�AO <O o rin u'iti- mZ v v m v m D D vD n < C N r m "•'r T Gl r 70 �o D D Z m y .•D. r LA = rr m rr- m T' z M M L, M' ° z IlVilsewmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III am S V Z N m a� tS. Z Z g j a r 1611 �- oR VgZ 0203,�u0i c�iz yy� c95n t3. . l7 v,o2 i a�Q 0. waG� Nc� g g O � F o °u0 oz A °zG CO� oz0.0 �S Qx �� e CD ZI a �V Wy.t pp�� O� ON<tA ae ¢tyro w + =yamo d 8RB '1 F• mmV oR< ,3 S V Z N m a� tS. Z Z g j a r 1611 �- oR VgZ 0203,�u0i c�iz yy� c95n t3. . l7 v,o2 i a�Q 0. waG� Nc� g g O � F o °u0 oz A °zG CO� oz0.0 �S Qx �� e CD V N C w g r2 N ON z� vF 'ra'c�z S o r s xx g1y't�fj�0 I . t h l + V N C w g r2 N ON z� vF 'ra'c�z S o r s xx g1y't�fj�0 I . t h Community Improvement Study Area I Reorganized Commons Site with Foundation Operations Relocated 14 =� • ■ 1..V N N Q m `V U ^W W 1_ t�► l is 1 ,3 �' + J fa Community Improvement Study Area I Reorganized Commons Site with Foundation Operations Relocated 14 =� • ■ 1..V N N Q m `V U ^W W 1_ t�► 1611919 P■ Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan — Signage IL 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, Ln � 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 c� addition of pots /decorative elements that all other primary Community Entry signs may have added in the future. GJ Opinion of Probable Cost: $'22,000 E Alternative solution: Replace this sign to match the existing signs at the Community entries on US 41. Q E Opinion of Probable Cost: $ 18,700 Phasing: This may be done at any time. However these wooden signs from an earlier time at a 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 communi ty and we su ggest that v CL 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 areto 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 '819 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. s 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 r6 a Sequencing: These projects may want to be done in conjunction with pathway, pathway bollard lighting, landscape and irrigation improvements. a 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 Q 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. cu 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 overtime 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/ 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. 05/18/2010 • �' M r,.6, Future maintenance and improvement guidelines: M We recommend the Foundation conclude the preparation of the Signage Covenant standards that they s have drafted for use in establishing a set of technical signage guidelines for application within Pelican Bay. v a) Phase replacement of the Pelican Bay Community signage as suggested in the signage master plan is to ca 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. C: Banner arms and other decorative holiday lighting options may be considered to be additional to the ca Signage Covenant standards and street light pole improvements. aj ' E v 0 Q E m C ra u a. �6 05/18/2010 wilsoom ller v 0 rD rD h Ln C Q D rD v m X lQ In v Lo r- 0 n v ct O v E 3 t 0 0 O D D 3 1 D � PQ �o F ,c 0 O D � D a D c a O �y FFZ ti 0 a m a� O as x O 3R OF � O 0 O D � D a D c a O �y FFZ ti 0 a m Pelican a Ilat'llfement Plan I PhacP III 1 O® 0 A 2 �9 0 O 6 ZQ �y 10, of O G D z w, G v O a� O 10 x O 3R OF Op Pelican a Ilat'llfement Plan I PhacP III 1 O® 0 A 2 �9 0 O 6 ZQ �y 10, of O G D z w, G v O ® O O x TO S Z C N A W o O C S - 10 : z n m Z o v s 0 3 N• N p C W 00 2. Q, m un d z d W D a G) W m <- a m 6 m z v wilsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III RN 1 Vr' wilsonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III RN 1 v rD 3 0 rD G Z3 CD 7 V) h C Q D rD ro v v 0 0 Ln m L' zi v LO m 3 0 G N 3 (D rs- 0) D H/ilsomiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III &I 461.1 619 1 41 3 -4 3 i :3 _0 Z�L i LO 0 :3 A, emit iz rD 0 l_n J�! 0 3 3 0 to 3 CD 3 rn < E3 < M w E3 rD Ln Z!� :5 0 go$ 0- �T, NS! > 0 rD 0 ti S 11 90- S- N 'All to 4 O M 4. 0 (D arlisonmiller Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 01 F- z�l L -A :2 Qj 3 3 2 0 0 :3 0 (D 1611 PA M (D 0 n 0 3 O 0 :5 0 D M r) ? 0 0 3 r) 0 3 O 3 rD QQ Ln (D -4* La CD 3 :D 0 1.4 0 0 CD is (D 0 0 LA Wbomiller 1 4 Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 01 v, v rD 3 0 (D 3 (D Ln r+ C Q `G D M M v Sn v Q M O o' M n 0 3 3 n v� m' S O o' m v 0 m (D' 0 03 Seagate Drive —e 1611 B19 0 wil."HNN101' Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III V9 E L D C) rD 0 G N 3 CD C C Q D v Sn Q v rD O 0 n' v_ rD 69 C n m O (E E G 3 �. � O O� �. n O 3 7 03 7 C M D �-r Gl 9� h v I !16I 1 819 Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 0 1611 819 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 a� Ln c6 t CL 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). c� Proposed Improvement: Open up views from Ridgewood Drive into park by thinning a shrub material along western edge (refer to Ridgewood Park illustrative plan this v section). E Opinion of Probable Cost $ 2,600 QJ > Alternative solutions: Reduce the area of sandy ground and the exercise trail in favor of O 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 >' this section). - ra m Opinion of Probable Cost $ 66,000 C ro 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 -131: 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 -C1: 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 0 1614, .1. Alternative solutions: Add a vehicular gate with an access card reader at the parking lot entry drive. Opinion of Probable Cost $ 9,500 ra � Phasing: Improvements can be phased in with the other park elements. Sequencing: Proposed improvement of drainage structure grate should be completed ra prior to relocating play equipment due to close proximity. a C D9 -D1: Enhance user experiences within the park (reference Ridgewood Park Options 1 and 2 QJ graphics). E ai > Proposed Improvement: Add three water fountain features into the southern two lakes 0 Q for the addition of white noise helping to mask noise from US 41. E Opinion of Probable Cost $ 20,700 00 Alternative solutions: Add.a wooden bridge connecting the walking trail to the island rawithin the lake to the north of the parking area. a 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. r� D9 -62: Enhance user experiences within the park (reference Oakmont Park Illustrative Plan graphic). 05/18/2010 1611 619 Proposed Improvement: Update play structure with expanded activities and add 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 $13,000 Phasing: Improvements may be phased in over time. Sequencing: These projects should be implemented after territorial observation projects. 05/18/2010 3 0 3 CD 7 h V) h Q D Q LQ CD C 0 0 �7 n n U' LO D m v Wilsomillei Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 091 2 LA % 3 \ e § \ _ � \ 3 I c s \ 0 k 2 \ / / / \ \ e 7 _ _ §�k ( §)d § ;§( § �2\ § ;2 k §§e ` 00 k 2`) § k § §) kk �zk T� jk k 25 §/ 1611 8 ; )e \§ d§ 2k § ; / 2 }Gd2/( k]E k2m2) 2 - >§§ > k> - mam; §, §��\ -0P § k!@ ;- ;f§ o c A o�\ ) } }\ )� 0 § /§I %� §z§ mr7; �/ \ §) _ §�k ( §)d § ;§( § �2\ § ;2 k §§e ` 00 k 2`) § k § §) kk �zk T� jk k 25 §/ 1611 8 ; )e \§ d§ 2k ; / }Gd2/( k]E k2m2) 2 - § § §7 §��\ -0P § \) o c A o�\ / \ ; ( \ \\ ! § {§ ! /0z G/ § f \ WiWaNifier Pelican Bay improvement mangy Phase III R9 I 2 % 2 j 3 7 / _ a x % 3 _ 3 e / § / \ / \ ƒ / / / +E \) ))23 q §k§ 7 § §$ lx ;S § \ §� f § §2 _ &�} \ �bm \ \ \} R 0 0S® ` � ` e | 2 , ; ! 2 4 § R\ § §® \/ )/ \ §§ ! §t /k \ §M / >\ \n \)0 ) �} q7 m 2) )/ 1611 Z , ? �■ � \■ � \ ) § ) §( 2 §( � §§ \/ wilsom% ler Pelican Ba yimprovement Plan I Phase m V9 1 �\k\ \\ ))k\ /)§) §))2 /m7] ()92 `C (e/! �/ k ® ` $ . §;;! ( Cz �■ � \■ � \ ) § ) §( 2 §( � §§ \/ wilsom% ler Pelican Ba yimprovement Plan I Phase m V9 1 0 rD 3 rD Q D Qj v W 0 m D 0 1611 819 NSONI IIVY Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase 111 09 z M CD n s O_ O N O rD D M V) C Q D v 0 M v' 0 n v O LA sy - -� SEAGATE. DR D In Q 9 ? g O ict pEU� $O 9 n a as a0 wilsonmillei Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III V9 1611 919 Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan — New Technologies 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 lamping, absence of any ballast needs to power the light and Ln 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 thecommunity 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. a� C. Continue to explore the option of self contained solar powered LED light fixtures for use in remote E locations from electrical power. 2 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. o E. Continue to use on- demand and other light level powering technologies in conjunction with LED u lighting for evening pedestrian use. — F. Consider the installation of Code Blue emergency call stations with camera surveillance at key v 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 v 3 O rD 3 (D r-F V1 CL D w v O O E Ln C N r- Cu m v r+ S v Ln N n O t -. F� 1611 B19 y� 3 zD M p,. O' -- m dD a.FZ2 zm`�r W0z�� D� z� zzm T 9 C, �m O AO A Om OT m < �ZSZ Z A A n�n O y0 9 Om z ° im A A C N m DOx c Z Z Z oO � � X D °m. DD CZ y O o= °zn z M p I 2 D G m z m y X Z O Z 2 m ° ° �z m�D�D mz< DmSn ° z Z° A— J W z6) D3D M °Do A C Z �2° s w C ' j i v r zz M z O M M ®ls®a ®/le% Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III ® 1 1611 B19 Pelican Bay Community Improvement Plan — Public Art Concluding Improvement Recommendations A. Given public art promotes the general welfare and quality of life within a community; enhances the real estate values of a community and expresses a communities pride ra 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. _ B. Pelican Bay benefits from many of its residents personal interests and activities as well as ro 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 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 of interests become the basis for establishing a committee for the addition of public art into the Community of Pelican Bay in order to further establish as a premier and model E community its commitment to the quality of life, the value of owning a residence and the establishment of a business practice within the community. CO C. The Pelican Bay Foundation establishes a community wide leadership committee, similar Y u to the Strategic Planning Committee, to work with The Foundation and its board to 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. i 05/18/2010 n D 3 0 M 3 M c 0_ D 61 'D S N l4 Ip r- 0 n v O _Q N La Qj 3 wit. 97miller OF Fy Z n� I �b° . s° �4 ve9rB «o N S 0 °o ate` CO. y o� \ Zi i^\ VANDERBICT BEACH RD- g ° i L, ° A D i "'I c n 3 _ c � � a z n -i D Z W1 Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III R9 0 SEAGATE DR v ?� \ f% PELICAN N Of OF Fy Z n� I �b° . s° �4 ve9rB «o N S 0 °o ate` CO. y o� \ Zi i^\ VANDERBICT BEACH RD- g ° i L, ° A D i "'I c n 3 _ c � � a z n -i D Z W1 Pelican Bay Improvement Plan I Phase III R9 0 16 11,,, PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, August 4, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, located at 8960 Hammock Oak Drive with the following members present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Geoffrey S. Gibson Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman John Iaizzo absent John P. Chandler absent Michael Levy Tom Cravens Theodore Raia, Jr. Johan Domenie John Baron Hunter H. Hansen Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill Mary McCaughtry Kyle Lukasz Lisa Resnick Also Present: Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Marcia Cravens, Vice- President, Mangrove Action Group Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Approval 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. July 7, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session b. July 8, 2010 Budget Subcommittee 4. Audience Participation 5. Administrator's Report a. Clam Bay Channel Maintenance Permit Update b. Capital Financing Update C. Monthly Financial Report 6. Chairman's Report a. Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PBS &J Report b. Community Improvement Plan Priorities C. Sheriff's request for Two Jet Skis d. Announcements 7. Community Issues 8. Committee Reports and /or Requests 9. Old Business a. Update on Tree Trimming for Lights b. Update on Vegetation Overgrowth 10. New Business 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence a. . Ongoing Projects Status Sheet 12. Audience Comments 13. Adjournment ROLL CALL With the exception of Mr. Chandler and Mr. Iaizzo, all Board members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Hansen to discuss item 6 a of the Chairman's Report, "Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PBS &J Report" subsequent to item 3, "Approval of Meeting Minutes" and approve the agenda as amended The Board voted unanimously in avor of the motion. 8392 1611 8191 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes Aueust 4.2010 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to approve the July 7, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session meeting minutes. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Mr. Levy made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to approve the July 8, 2010 Budget Subcommittee meeting minutes. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. PELICAN BAY INDEPENDENT DISTRICT Mr. Cravens questioned if Chairman Dallas would be participating in the Pelican Bay Foundation's independent district ad- hoc committee. In order to protect attorney - client privilege and confidentiality of work product, Mr. Hoppensteadt explained that Chairman Dallas, as a member of an advisory board to the Board of County Commissioners, could not participate in the Foundation's independent district ad -hoc committee. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT FINALIZE SCOPE OF WORK FOR PEER REVIEW OF PBS &J REPORT Chairman Dallas stressed the need after many months to finalize the scope of work for the peer review of the PBS &J report, recognizing that it is an imperfect document and that its intended use is as a guideline. Dr. Raia made a motion not to proceed with participating in a peer review with the County, but no second made. Mr. Levy made a motion, second by Mr. Cravens to approve the peer review scope of work document as presented. The Board was concerned that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection would "rubber stamp" the PBS &J report, what the County's intent is, and a general feeling of mistrust. Ms. Marcia Cravens said this Board's fears are unfounded. She doubts that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection would "rubber stamp" the PBS &J report because there is too much criticism of it. She suggested this Board recognize that they have reached an impasse with the County. Ms. Kathy Worley said a peer review is a review of a document without constraints or elaboration. The scope of work should not focus on water quality solely. The hydrology and methods used in the report will be used to create a hydrology model to recommend where to dredge. "Bad data in" will yield "bad data out," so it is important that someone who understands the methodology perform the peer review. Mr. Hoppensteadt questioned the relevancy of a peer review of a report from October 2009. Mr. Cravens withdrew his second of Mr. Levy's motion to approve the peer review scope of work as presented. Mr. Hansen made a motion, second by Vice - Chairwoman Womble to accept the language of the peer review scope of work document, "as is." The Board voted 4 in favor (Hansen, Baron, Gibson, and Dallas) to S not in_favor (Domenie, Raia, Levy, Womble, Cravens) and the motion failed. Mr. Dorrill said the original intent of this process was to be a request for proposals as to who would be the most qualified to perform a peer review. The Board of County Commissioners established specific criteria for a peer reviewer in that a peer reviewer 8393 161 i 8191 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes August 4, 2010 - - -- should not have a consulting relationship with Collier County or PBS &J, and have an academic background. Now Coastal Zone Management is attempting to introduce the idea that a consultant be from a National Marine Estuary program. He suggested that the Board communicate with County Manager Ochs that this Board has reached an impasse with Coastal Zone Management who they feel is attempting to push the scope of work to go beyond the expressed direction given by the Board of County Commissioners. He further suggested they should hold off on considering performing their own peer review independent of the County. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr.Domenie to direct the administrator to request direction from County Manager Ochs regarding the Pelican Bay Services Division Board reaching an impasse with Coastal Zone Management staff who they feel is attempting to push the scope of work beyond the expressed direction given by the Board of County Commissioners. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT CLAM BAY CHANNEL MAINTENANCE PERMIT UPDATE Mr. Tim Hall has filed a response to the Army Corp. of Engineers to their Request for Additional information and will file a response with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection by August 6. They should receive a response from both agencies within thirty days. CAPITAL FINANCING UPDATE Mr. Dorrill reported that he spoke with the County about incurring short-term or intermediate -term financing options, i.e., to replace the streetlights under the Community Improvement Plan. The County believes Pelican Bay to be credit -worthy to receive adequate traditional bank financing. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported that the Services Division has approximately $3.4 million in cash overall. The operating budget has approximately $1.6 million in cash, and approximately $11,000 in payables. They should finish the year under operating budget by close to $100,000 with $2.5 million in capital. In response to Mr. Hansen's questions on July 7, some miscellaneous expenses were re- categorized. Mr. Levy said when this Board approved the Services Division's Fiscal Year 2011 budget, the Board voted to reduce the Services Division's Fiscal Year 2010 Clam Bay Fund assessment to $35,000 to match the County's Fund 11 1 contribution of $35,000 and asked if a budget amendment was processed. Mr. DorrilI said staff would process a budget amendment before the end of the 2010 Fiscal Year. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN PRIORITIES Chairman Dallas scheduled a special meeting on September 2 at 1 p.m. to discuss Community Improvement Plan priorities responses. Based on member responses, there seems to be general agreement as to what Community Improvement Plan projects should be high priority and low priority. To communicate ideas to the community, they plan to publish an expanded executive summary in the Pelican Bay Post in October or November. 161i g191 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes August 4, 2010 SHERIFF'S REQUEST FOR TWO JET SKIS July 7, the Sheriff requested help reaching $23,000 from the Services Division to purchase two jet skis to provide emergency response and rescue services within traditionally inaccessible areas of Clam Bay. Mr. Cravens said Pelican Bay is adequately equipped to deal with cardiac emergencies. In addition, he does not believe the Services Division as a County entity should be giving another County entity money. Mr. Dorrill said the Sheriff is not the principal "first responder" for medical rescue. If this Board feels there is merit for the Sheriff to patrol and to perform search and rescue activities in the back bay, and have any interest in exploring this further, they should table it and direct staff to gather more information for an inter -local agreement. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenie to table the Sheriffs request for two jet skis and the administrator to request more information. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas said thank you to everyone for efforts on the peer review. The Clam Bay Estuary Subcommittee meets August 5 at 9, Coastal Advisory Committee meets August 12 at 1, and the Foundation meets August 20. COMMUNITY ISSUES No discussion COMMITTEE REPORTS /REQUESTS No discussion OLD BUSINESS UPDATE ON TREE TRIMMING FOR LIGHTS Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to move 8 street lighting poles identified on Pelican Bay Boulevard that are obscuring lighting at a cost of 517,000 and trim 15 trees identified as obscuring lighting at a cost of $9,450. The Board voted unanimously in avor qf the motion. UPDATE ON VEGETATION OVERGROWTH Mr. Lukasz reported that he met with Mr. Cravens who identified areas of concern and the Services Division would address within the next sixty days. NEW BUSINESS No discussion MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE No discussion AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ms. Marcia Cravens encouraged Pelican Bay to become a Florida Audubon Signature Community. ADJOURN Chairman Dallas made a motion, second by Chairwoman Womble to adjourn and the Board voted unanimously to adjourn at 3:05 pm Tz It . Dallas, C a rnlan Minutes by Lisa Resnick 9/2/2010 11:51:04 AM 8395 u s ,2010 -3a lia ices Division Roard Regular Session 1611 g ro t ojJu 7, 2010 Regular Session Minutes Page 1 of 5 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in regular session Wednesday, July 7, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, located at 8960 Hammock Oak Drive with the following members present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Geoffrey S. Gibson Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman John Iaizzo John P. Chandler absent Michael Levy Tom Cravens Theodore Raia, Jr. absent Johan Domenie John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill Mary McCaughtry Kyle Lukasz Lisa Resnick AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Approval 3. Collier County Sheriff's Request for Funds to Purchase Two Jet Skis for Emergency Response in Clam Bay (add on) 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. May 26, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Workshop b. June 2, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5. Audience Participation 6. Administrator's Report a. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Update b. Governance Update c. Monthly Financial Report 7. Chairman's Report a. Peer Review of PBS &J Report Update b. Community Improvement Plan Priorities c. Management Contract Review d. Announcements 8. Community Issues 9. Committee Reports and /or Requests 10. Old Business 11. New Business a. Vegetation Overgrowth (T. Cravens add on) 12. Miscellaneous Correspondence a. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet 13. Audience Comments 14. Adjourn ROLL CALL With the exception of Mr. Baron, Mr. Chandler, and Dr. Raia, all Board members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL Chairman Dallas added agenda item three to allow the Collier County Sheriff's office to request funding to purchase two jet skis for emergency response in Clam Bay; and he would include discussing suggestions distributed by Mr. Cravens for the Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work when they discuss the Chairman's Report, Peer Review of PBS &J update. Mr. Cravens added discussion of vegetation overgrowth along Pelican Bay Boulevard that is obscuring existing street lighting, and overgrowth along the west side of the berm under new business. Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes Julv 7. 2010 Vice Chairwoman Womble announced that it was Mrs. Cora Obley's birthday. Mr his birthday, as well as Mr. Coleman Connell's birthday. 1 August 4, 2010 - 3 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular session Approval of luly 7, 2010 Regular Session Minutes Page 2 of 5 . Cravens announ� 11 tl�t i�s alsp 61 �. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to approve the agenda as amended. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S REQUEST FOR FUNDS.TO PURCHASE TWO JET SKIS FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE IN CLAM BAY Sergeant Jake Walker and Corporal Carmine Marceno of the Collier County Sheriff s North Naples Community Policing substation requested $23,000 to purchase two jet skis and trailers to respond to medical calls along the beach, suspicious boaters, and suspicious incidents and people in general to provide efficient patrol and emergency response and rescue services within inaccessible areas of Clam Bay. Law enforcement best management practice asserts that two watercraft should operate in tandem. The Board postponed further discussion until August 4. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Chairman Dallas and Vice Chairwoman Womble noted Scrivener's errors for correction. The title of the May 26 minutes, page 105 should read "workshop" not "regular session." The June 2 meeting minutes, page 8381 should read, "... general fund has approximately..." Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to approve tite May 26 and June 2 meeting minutes as amended. The Board voted unanimousl in favor o the motion. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Ms. Marcia Cravens submitted a document with suggestions for the peer review. She said the June 25 governance memorandum is inconsistent with observations made at public meetings. She is concerned and questioned the intent and benefit of Pelican Bay of becoming an independent district if they could lose control over Clam Bay. Mr. Dorrill said he does not believe the County will give up ownership or decision making authority of any conservation areas, including Clam Bay. Regarding the Administrator's contract, Ms. Cravens said that the Board should consider cutting administrative costs because there are less administrative responsibilities in Clam Bay currently. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT . DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL UPDATE Mr. Dorrill reported that an application for an emergency permit to close Clam Pass is complete and in a position to be filed with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in the event of a declared emergency where oil or byproducts might pose a threat to the coastline. The application requires Board of County Commission Chairman or his designee's signature, therefore, when an emergency declared, the application would channel through accelerated procedures and submitted. As there is i ii August 49 2010 - 3 a pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Approval of July 7, 2010 Regular Session Minutes Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 5 Julv 7, 2010 sufficient sand forward of the dune line, sand will be used as the fill material. There was some discussion about how closing Clam Pass would affect the health of the mangroves. Mr. Hall said if the Pass is closed, the health of the mangroves is dependent upon the weather. GOVERNANCE UPDATE 1611 B19 Mr. Dorrill reported that the Pelican Bay Foundation has taken the lead to explore the possibility of Pelican Bay becoming an independent district. They will examine the business points of the deal to define which assets and under what terms and conditions are those assets the independent district should acquire, i.e., roadways, water management facilities, the twelve -acre operations site, and neighborhood parks. Mr. Gibson noted that they should consider it a priority to produce more reclaimed water for the community. To allow proper vetting of the idea of independence, the consensus is that a draft bill could go before the Legislative Delegation during the 2012 Legislative Session at the earliest. Mr. Cravens made motion, second by Mr. Domenie that Pelican Bay Services Division Chairman Dallas is included in the Pelican Ba Foundation's ad -Itoc overnance committee. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported that the third quarter financials are "looking extremely good." They received a $13,000 reimbursement from the County for selling surplus property. Tree trimming is over budget, however overall they are under budget and he estimates finishing the year under budget by $100,000. Mr. Hansen Said they should itemize the line item "other operating supplies" under "right of way beautification" that is over budget by 50 %. Mr. Lukasz said "other operating supplies" includes miscellaneous supplies and equipment, but that he would review it. Mr. Dorrill added there might be some items there that are misclassified. Mr. Cravens said he sees Services Division vehicles running when not occupied and Mr. Dorrill said to report such incidents to the office to deal with as they occur. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Hansen to accept the June, 2010 monthly financial report as presented. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT PEER REVIEW OF PBS &J REPORT UPDATE Chairman Dallas summarized the current revised peer review scope of work document and proposed evaluation process. Mr. Levy expressed concern that the current document does not clearly state that the goal is to perform a peer review of the PBS &J report only, and the geographical definition of Clam Bay is expanded to include Doctor's Pass. The document infers that the Pelican Bay Services Division is working continuously with the County on the Clam Bay Estuary. The peer review should :• August 4, 2010 - 3 a Pelican Ray Services Division Board Regular Session Approval of July 7, 2010 Regular Session Minutes Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 5 July 7, 2010 be limited to what was originally proposed and what the Commissioners approved. Mr. Cravens agreed. Cousi 9 that ris Board has already addressed these concerns and they appeared to be back at square one. 161 1 Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Hansen to accept the Chairman's peer review scope of work as presented. Chairman Dallas called a question on the motion and the Board voted unanimously in opposition of the motion. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenie to amend first paragraph of the peer review scope of work document to read, "During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved an independent peer review of the October, 2009 PBS &J Clam Bay Estuary Data Collection & Analysis final report. " The Board voted unanimouslv in favorof the motion. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to amend the second paragraph of the peer review scope of work document by striking, "... or national estuary program. 11 The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion: Chairman Dallas reviewed the draft letter to Chairman Sorey of the Coastal Advisory Committee with the Services Division's concerns regarding the Clan Bay Estuary modeling study. Of concern was how the Clam Bay Estuary was defined geographically, as well as an ever - expanding scope. Mr. Gibson said they should address these issues in the letter. Vice Chairwoman Womble suggested they use the Board of County Commissioners' approved language from April 22, 2008 and December 15, 2009. Board members were instructed to return their peer review scope of work suggestions and concerns regarding the Clam Bay Estuary modeling study to Ms. Resnick by July 19 to approve a new draft document at the August 4 meeting, and agenda packets were scheduled to be available July 26. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN PRIORITIES Chairman Dallas reviewed the Community Improvement Plan priorities form. Four members responded. Members challenged the methodology and the Board consensus was to rank all items one through infinity and do not reuse the same number twice. The Board was instructed to complete and return to Ms. Resnick by July 19. The responses would be entered and mean calculated with cumulative dollar amount. MANAGEMENT CONTRACT REVIEW Mr. Gibson made a motion, second by Mr. Iaizzo to increase Mr. Dorrill's minimum compensated )tours from six hours to eight hours weekly thereby increasing his compensation by $1,580 per month. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas said members should be mindful of the Sunshine Law. He suggested that if members wish to comment on an email, to send r comments to Ms. Resnick and she would provide to all members at the next public meeting. July 8 at 10:30 a.m. the Budget committee will meet to discuss how to approach prioritizing community improvement plan projects and alternative financing options. The Clam Bay subcommittee meets July 15. The Foundation does not meet in July. i • 1' August 4, 2010 - 3 a Pelican Say Services Division Board Regular Session Approval of July 7, 2020 Regular Session Minutes Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes Pages 5 of 5 Julv 7, 2010 COMMUNITY ISSUES 161 1 819 ' The Clam Bay channel maintenance permit application is in process. The Army Corp. of Engineers submitted a request for additional information to Mr. Hall that appears to be routine. An update would be provided at the August 4 meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS/REQUESTS No discussion OLD BUSINESS No discussion NEW BUSINESS Mr. Cravens said tree growth is obscuring street lighting on Pelican Bay Boulevard and suggested the Services Division address the issue by trimming or removing trees. Mr. Dorrill said tree removal permits would probably have to be obtained. Mr. Lukasz said the Services Division has pruned trees identified as obscuring street lighting in the Wilson Miller report. He would provide his recommendations with costs at the August 4 meeting. Mr. Cravens said there is overgrown vegetation along the west side of the berm and suggested the Services Division trim. Mr. Hall said they do not need a permit to trim the area because it is part of the maintenance of the water management system and Mr. Lukasz said he would address it. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE No discussion AUDIENCE COMMENTS No discussion ADJOURN Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenie to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously in avor qf the motion. Keith J. Dallas, Chairman 8391 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 7/22/2010 9:34:00 AM August 4, 2010 - 3 b Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Approval of July 8, 2010 Budget Committee Minates Page 1 of 2 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MEETING MI�TyS ^ JULY 8, 2010 16 f 19 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 Thursday, July 8 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 John Chandler absent John Iaizzo absent Keith J. Dallas Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill Mary McCaughtry Kyle Lukasz Lisa Resnick AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Audience Participation 3. Community Improvement Plan Project Priorities Discussion 4. Audience Comments 5. Adjourn ROLL CALL Chairman Levy called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. With the exception of Mr. Chandler and Mr. Iaizzo, all members present and quorum established. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION No discussion COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT PRIORITIES DISCUSSION Mr. Dallas said once members have ranked Community Improvement Plan projects they should put them in order and calculate the cumulative dollar amount to find out whether they have enough money to fund the projects they desire to complete and look for alternative funding sources. Chairman Levy said they should consider raising the assessment. Mr. Gibson said if raising the assessment is what they decide, then they should do a demonstration project and communicate their plans with residents. Mr. Dorrill said he spoke with Mr. Mark Isackson, Chief Assistant County Manager and they are affiliated with the Florida Government Finance Corporation, a consortium of credit -worthy government entities. They have put together a $60 million Commercial Paper Program that provides them with funding for projects with terns of 25 years at 5% interest and should be available in September. He suggested the Board inform Mr. Leo Ochs, County Manager that the Services Division is interested in utilizing the Commercial Paper Program. Formally, the Services Division would present an executive summary to the Board of County Commissioners with intent to participate in the Commercial Paper Program. In 1101 August 4, 2010 - 3 b Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Approval of July 8, 2010 Budget Committee Minutes Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes Page 2 ©f 2 July 8. 2010 addition, the Services Division should inform the community of the program and explain the rationale of borrowing money versus using available cash to protect and enhance property values. 1611 B AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Jerry Moffatt said to let the Board members know financing options are available before they rank the projects. He also suggested for uniformity, the Services Division make project decisions that coordinate with decisions made by the Foundation. ADJOURN F r. Dallas made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to adjourn at 11 :10 a.m. and the Board voted nanimously in favor o the motion. Michael Levy, Chairman 1102 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 7 /23/2010 4:02:57 PM Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Accrued Wages Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet -July 27, 2010 operating Fund 109 (Unaudited) Assets 1,568,844.70 $ 1,568,844.70 $ 1,568,844.70 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ (11,966.31) (32,548.00) (1,715,639.09) 191,308.70 $ (44,514.31) (1,524,330.39) $ (1,568,844.70) Page 1 of 1 16I 1 619'-4 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget -July 27, 2010 Operating Fund 109 (Unaudited) Operating Revenues: Carryforward Special Assessment -Water Management Administration Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification Charges for Services Surplus Property Sales Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Water Management Administration Payroll Expense White Goods IT Direct Client Support Indirect Cost Reimbursement Interdepartmental Payment Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage Rent Buildings and Equipment Insurance - General Printing, Binding and Copying Clerk's Recording Fees Advertising Other Office and Operating Supplies Fertilizer /Herb Chemicals (J /E to correct) 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 Fees Other Contractural Services Temporary Labor Telephone Postage Trash and Garbage Electrical Components Maintenance Motor Pool Rental Charge Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Tree Triming Clothing and Uniforms Personal Safety Equipment 1611919 ' Budget Actual Variance (10,000.00) for equipment reserves 34,372.83 $ $ 742,500.00 $ 715,828.61 $ (26,671.39) 1,922,500.00 1,853,533.41 (68,966.59) 1,500.00 - (1,500.00) - 13,043.00 13,043.00 40,500.00 11,542.60 (28,957.40) 2,697,000.00 2,593,947.62 (113,052.38) $ 44,500.00 $ 34,372.83 $ 10,127.17 18,300.00 - $ 18,300.00 4,100.00 4,100.00 - 117,600.00 117,600.00 - 16,600.00 16,600.00 - 21,300.00 12,851.17 8,448.83 41100.00 2,367.07 1,732.93 3,000.00 50.95 2,949.05 13,400.00 12,469.05 930.95 1,300.00 975.00 325.00 2,300.00 827.50 1,472.50 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 4,261.57 2,157.82 2,103.75 2,981.20 (2,981.20) 1,100.00 526.30 573.70 255,861.57 207,878.89 47,982.68 148,600.00 119,144.68 29,455.32 12,000.00 2,788.75 9,211.25 14,000.00 2,468.00 11,532.00 8,500.00 1,975.00 6,525.00 21,100.00 11,891.00 9,209.00 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 42,400.00 34,000.00 8,400.00 500.00 325.80 174.20 - 272.00 (272.00) 8,300.00 7,308.21 991.79 - 1,370.47 (1,370.47) - 47.60 (47.60) 2,600.00 1,950.00 650.00 3,600.00 2,700.00 900.00 4,500.00 2,696.47 1,803.53 2,000.00 4,237.38 (2,237.38) 27,600.00 20,556.00 7,044.00 1,900.00 4,181.96 (2,281.96) 500.00 896.44 (396.44) Page 1 of 3 1611 B19�1 Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 64,673.47 33,726.53 Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 1,091.00 409.00 Other Operating Supplies 2,500.00 3,765.61 (1,265.61) Total Water Management Field Operations Operating 403,000.00 288,339.84 114,660.16 Right of Way Beautification Payroll Expense 45,600.00 35,168.40 10,431.60 White Goods 16,900.00 - 16,900.00 IT Direct Client Support 4,200.00 4,200.00 - Other Contractural Services 28,000.00 14,093.67 13,906.33 Telephone 3,900.00 2,228.55 1,671.45 Postage 3,000.00 28.20 2,971.80 Rent Buildings and Equipment 13,800.00 12,820.76 979.24 Insurance - General 500.00 375.00 125.00 Storage Rental - 466.80 (466.80) Printing, Binding and Copying 2,600.00 577.50 2,022.50 Clerk's Recording 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 Advertising 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 Office Supplies General 4,774.26 2,555.42 2,218.84 Training and Education 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating 128,774.26 72,514.30 56,259.96 Right of Way Beautification - Field Payroll Expense 806,700.00 608,697.62 198,002.38 White Goods 3,300.00 - 3,300.00 Flood Control 130,400.00 116,249.64 14,150.36 Pest Control 6,500.00 - 6,500.00 Other Contractural Services 29,500.00 29,900.44 (400.44) Temporary Labor 211,800.00 149,390.68 62,409.32 Travel Professional Development 642.87 (642.87) Telephone 3,800.00 2,359.15 1,440.85 Trash and Garbage 24,900.00 12,168.12 12,731.88 Water and Sewer - - - Electricity 3,400.00 2,048.66 1,351.34 Rent Equipment 8,500.00 3,022.59 5,477.41 Motor Pool Rental Charge 800.00 216.00 584.00 Insurance - General 12,200.00 9,150.00 3,050.00 Insurance - Auto 9,300.00 6,975.00 2,325.00 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 29,400.00 19,660.57 9,739.43 Fuel and Lubricants 47,100.00 25,107.41 21,992.59 Licenses and Permits 800.00 339.78 460.22 Tree Triming 25,000.00 31,095.00 (6,095.00) Clothing and Uniforms 12,000.00 3,462.59 8,537.41 Personal Safety Equipment 3,000.00 1,341.71 1,658.29 Fertilizer and Herbicides 58,500.00 53,200.30 5,299.70 Landscape Maintenance 60,200.00 47,085.20 13,114.80 Sprinkler Maintenance 30,000.00 14,051.24 15,948.76 Painting Supplies 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 Traffic Signs 3,000.00 530.00 2,470.00 Minor Operating Equipment 3,000.00 4,324.14 (1,324.14) Other Operating Supplies 11,500.00 18,179.18 (6,679.18) Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating 1,536,100.00 1,159,197.89 376,902.11 Total Operating Expenditures 2,323,735.83 1,727,930.92 595,804.91 Page 2 of 3 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 819 1i 1,000.00 430.45 569.55 1,000.00 430.45 569.55 13,200.00 9,602.47 3,597.53 13,200.00 9,602.47 3,597.53 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 18,217.34 5,782.66 63,600.00 52,160.34 11,439.66 78,800.00 62,193.26 16,606.74 2,402,535.83 1,790,124.18 612,411.65 294,464.17 803,823.44 509,359.27 (82,500.00) (51,393.89) 31,106.11 (75,200.00) (41,089.82) 34,110.18 (140,000.00) - 140,000.00 (297,700.00) (92,483.71) 205,216.29 (3,235.83) 711,339.73 714,575.56 Page 3 of 3 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - July 27, 2010 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenue (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Assets $ 243,728.22 Liabilities and Fund Balance (1,265.05) (2,830.20) (314,193.43) 74,560.46 Page 1 of 1 16 11'A 194 243,728.22 $ 243,728.22 $ (4,095.25) (239,632.97) $ (243,728.22) Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - July 27, 2010 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Operating Revenues: Ca rryforwa rd 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 - lephone . stage Rent Buildings and Equipment and Storage Insurance - General Storage Rental Office Supplies General Other Office and Operating Supplies Total Street Lighting Administration Operating Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense White Goods Travel Professional Development Telephone Electricity Insurance - General Insurance -Auto Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Other Equipment Repairs "- rsonal Safety Equipment .ctrical Contractors 16 41t. 819 Budget Actual Variance (300.00) 285,700.00 $ 275,688.44 $ (10,011.56) 4,600.00 1,589.82 (3,010.18) 290,000.00 277,278.26 (13,021.74) 33,900.00 $ 26,382.03 $ 19,800.00 - $ 4,100.00 4,100.00 7,517.97 19,800.00 6,700.00 6,700.00 - 20,800.00 12,851.17 7,948.83 4,100.00 1,618.79 2,481.21 2,000.00 3.40 1,996.60 13,400.00 12, 254.16 1,145.84 400.00 300.00 100.00 - 291.75 (291.75) 500.00 1,761.57 (1,261.57) 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 106,700.00 66,262.87 40,437.13 54,000.00 42,853.79 11,146.21 14,500.00 - 14,500.00 2,752.81 (2,752.81) 2,300.00 162.90 2,137.10 44,200.00 25,931.36 18,268.64 800.00 600.00 200.00 1,100.00 825.00 275.00 1,300.00 2,499.92 (1,199.92) 900.00 427.05 472.95 200.00 - 200.00 500.00 - 500.00 7,300.00 - 7,300.00 Page 1 of 2 -ht Bulb Ballast Total Street Lighting Field Operations Operatin 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 Property Appraiser Fees Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expenditur Net Profit /(Loss) 12,400.00 7,365.71 139,500.00 246, 200.00 83,418.54 149, 681.41 1611 B19' 5,034.29 56,081.46 96,518.59 1,000.00 443.49 556.51 1,000.00 443.49 556.51 13,200.00 8,232.00 4,968.00 13,200.00 8,232.00 14,200.00 260,400.00 29,600.00 (8,800.00) (5,800.00) (15,000.00) (29,600.00) Page 2 of 2 8,675.49 158,356.90 118,921.36 (5,529.45) (1,139.90) (6,669.35) 112,252.01 4,968.00 5,524.51 102,043.10 89,321.36 3,270.55 4,660.10 15,000.00 22,930.65 112, 252.01 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - July 27, 2010 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 473,195.40 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 473,195.40 $ 473,195.40 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ (522.50) $ (522.50) (392,850.20) (79,300.20) Page 1 of 1 (1,045.00) (472,150.40 $ (473,195.40) 1611 '819 1 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - July 27, 2010 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) FY 2010 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 '' her Equipment Repairs .nor 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 Expenditur ,..:t Profit /(Loss) $ 350,900.00 102,400.00 102,400.00 555,700.00 83,100.00 $ 83,500.00 500.00 2,400.00 500.00 170,000.00 25,000.00 350,000.00 375,000.00 545,000.00 10,700.00 16I 1 619 + Variance $ (350,900.00) 98,528.50 (3,871.50) 35,000.00 (67,400.00) 3,147.70 3,147.70 136,676.20 (419,023.80) 14,038.75 $ 69,061.25 1,229.16 (2,100.00) 16,224.00 67,276.00 22.04 (22.04) 89.50 410.50 - 2,400.00 - 500.00 30,374.29 22,900.00 22,900.00 53,274.29 83,401.91 139,625.71 2,100.00 350,000.00 352,100.00 491,725.71 72,701.91 (3,200.00) (1,970.84) 1,229.16 (2,100.00) (1,535.04) 564.96 (5,400.00) - 5,400.00 (10,700.00) (3,505.88) 7,194.12 - 79,896.03 79,896.03 Page 1 of 1 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received Inv. Received Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet -July 27, 2010 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets $ 2,002,692.49 Liabilities and Fund Balance Page 1 of 1 452.36 (1,030,261.41) (972,883.44) 1611 819 + 2,002,692.49 $ 2,002,692.49 452.36 (2,003,144.85) $ (2,002,692.49) 161.1 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - July 27, 2010 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) FY 2010 Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Special Assessment Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Irrigation & Landscaping Engineering Fees Interdept. Payment Other Contractural Services I icenses and Permits Total Irrigation & Landscaping Non - Operating Revenues and (Expenditures): $ 2,029,500.00 55,900.00 53,891.26 (2,008.74) 19,800.00 15,245.24 (4,554.76) 2,105,200.00 69,136.50 (6,563.50) $ 175,000.00 $ 25,437.80 $ 149,562.20 1,924,500.00 155,624.43 1,768,875.57 237.85 (237.85) 2,099,500.00 181,300.08 1,918,199.92 Transfer from Fund 109 $ (902,000.00) $ (902,000.00) $ - Transfer from Fund 778 (186,400.00) (186,400.00) $ - Tax Collector Fees (1,700.00) (1,078.00) 622.00 Property Appraiser Fees (1,100.00) (837.97) 262.03 Revenue Reserve (2,900.00) - 2,900.00 Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expenditures, n (1,094,100.00) (1,090,315.97) 3,784.03 Net Profit /(Loss) (1,088,400.00) (1,202,479.55) (114,079.55) Page 1 of 1 August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular ResnickL - finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PBSBJ Report From: Keith Dallas j 26, 2 10 2 :02 PM st.net] Page 1 of 2 Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 2:02 PM To: ResriUL 1 19 F- '-�ct: Peer Review Scope of Work vents: Peer Review Draft ES - 7.docx; ATT00001..htm; Peer Review Draft ES- 7- 2.docx; ATT00002..htm; concerns on water circulation mo ng 2.doc; ATi00003..htm; concerns on water circulation modeling 2- 2.doc; ATf00004..htm Lisa, would you see that my comments below be passed on to the PBSD Board as part of the Agenda package for the August 4th Regular PBSD meeting, along with the revised draft language. Attached are revised drafts of the "Peer Review Scope of Work" and the letter "Concerns about Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study ". One set are the finished drafts, while the other set shows additions in red, and deletions with a line drawn through them. I have tried to take as many of the comments into account as is physically possible, rewording some of the language where necessary for readability. Besides the revised drafts, please include as background the following comments received from the following individuals: * John Chandler 7 /12/10 * Tom Cravens 7/7/10 * John Domenie 7/15/10 * Mike Levy 7/16/10 * Ted Raia 7/19/10 I thank everyone for their input. The objective at the August 4th meeting is to agree on final language for the two drafts. As can be seen from the July 8th email from Gary McAlpin to the Clam Bay Subcommittee etc. (Lisa, please attach to this package), our inability to finalize these documents on the 4th would probably mean the death of this peer review attempt. I feel that would be very unfortunate. Although our work on Peer Review could be moot if the Foundation can strike a general agreement on Clam Bay with the County, that a^- reement at best will not be finalized for some time, and is not guaranteed to happen. In the absence of such an agreement, I feel prudent to finalize the Peer Review Scope of Work to keep pressure on the County. A final point. Please pay attention specifically to Mike Levy's comments. He has taken the approach that we have not agreed to be involved in future studies and therefore should not be discussing the water circulation model in our scope of work or in my proposed letter. I did not take those comments into account in my draft, feeling that our discussions at our June 2nd meeting (see page 83 84) indicated that the PBSD was willing to discuss future studies in .a very vague, limited manner. The language of the first draft of my letter is taken primarily from those minutes. I would like the Board to decide if they agree with my approach and then finalize our language on August 4th. Keith 1 of 1 712712010 8:46 AM by LR 1611 '919 August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PBSBJ Report Page 2 of 20 Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work March 15, 2010 March 19, 2010 - Rev. 1 June 25, 2010 - Rev. 2 June 30, 2010 - Rev. 3 July 1, 2010 - Rev. 4 July 1, 2010 - Rev. 5 July 1, 2010 - Rev. 6 July 23, 2010 - Rev. 7 Background During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved an independent peer review of the October 2009 PBSD report and the work required to complete the development of a comprehensive management plan for the Clam Bay Estuary. Specifically, the BCC authorized that a recognized expert perform an independent review of the Final October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report completed by PBSD. To complete this analysis, a thorough review of all available historical data including the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) historical water quality data is required. This expert, jointly selected by PBSD and Coastal Zone Management (CZM), will be from an academic, university, or research institute and not directly involved with any consulting firm. Additionally, this individual will be independent without any material relationship with the PBSD, the Pelican Bay Foundation or Collier County government. The review of the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis Report is proposed to be conducted at the beginning of-the development of the water flushing /circulation model. It is also recommended that the cost of this effort be split between the PBSD and CZM. The current financial commitment from the PBSD is only for the PBSD report evaluation. After the peer review of the Final PBSD report is completed and distributed, the PBSD will consider participating in the peer review of other studies or reports that includes the Clam Bay NRPA. Consideration A thorough review of the PBSD report should involve a number of critical sciences. Among others, these disciplines would involve water quality, marine biology, modeling /hydrology, geology, and natural estuary/ecosystems. The water quality expertise that is required for the PBSD report is not just the review and analysis to state standards but also expertise with respect to the proactive development of our specific water quality standards for the Clam Bay estuary system and the establishment of our own multi -year estuary management program that will address critical water quality issues as opposed to having FDEP establish solutions. While other skill sets are important, the vast majority of the reviewer expertise needs to be focused in these discipline areas. 161 1819 I August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PBS&J Report Page 3 of 20 Activities to be performed during this Peer Review 1. Review, analysis and critique of the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report dated October 2009 performed by PBS &J to include: • Analysis of all available historical data including the Services Division's historical data /information. Accuracy and sufficiency of the data collection efforts undertaken in the development of the PBS &J Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report given the fragile nature of the Clam Bay NRPA, the contracting constraints and ability to augment data with future collection. Accuracy of methodologies used in the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report performed by PBS &J. Appropriateness of findings, conclusions, recommendations, and summary of the report. Evaluation of Proposals Already pre- identified candidates by the PBSD and CMZ/CAC will be solicited to submit credentials and proposals to perform a Peer Review of the PBS &J Data Collection and Analysis report. The Collier County purchasing department would confirm with the PBSD Chairman and the CAC Chairman the proposed list of candidates to be approached and then initiate this solicitation. Solicitations for RFP to each candidate will be recorded onto a log and the log provided to PBSD and CZM /CAC. All proposals will be jointly evaluated and must be acceptable to both Collier County Coastal Zone Management /CAC and the Pelican Bay Services Division. The Evaluation and Selection process is outlined as follows: 1. Candidates will submit their qualifications, experiences, related work history and schedule for consideration. This summary should not be more that 4 pages in total length and focus on water quality, marine biology, hydrology, geology, and natural estuary/ecosystems. 2. Selection will be based on a total composite score. This score will be based on knowledge, experience, work history and background in similar ecosystems as per the criteria listed in item one above. Schedule will also be considered in this evaluation. 3. The Pelican Bay Services Division will perform their own independent evaluation and submit their three top candidates for discussion. Coastal Zone Management/CAC will do the same. The six potential candidates will be jointly evaluated by a committee consisting of The Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Vice Chair of the Pelican Bay Services Division, and the director /Manager of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Chairman of the CAC, the Vice Chair of the CAC and the Director of the CZM. This group will select and recommend the final candidate. 4. The final selection must be approved by both the Pelican Bay Services Division board and the CZM /CAC. The final candidate will also be approved by the BCC. 1611 819 August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PBSW Report Page 4 of 20 Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work March 15, 2010 March 19, 2010 —Rev. 1 June 25, 2010 — Rev. 2 June 30, 2010 — Rev. 3 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 4 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 5 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 6 July 23, 2010 — Rev. 7 Background During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved an independent peer review of the October 2009 PBSD report and the work required to complete the development of a comprehensive management plan for the Clam Bay Estuary. Specifically, the BCC authorized that a recognized expert perform an independent review of the Final October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report fesentl} completed by PBSD. To complete this analysis, a thorough review of all available historical water quality data including the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) historical water quality data is required. This expert, jointly selected by PBSD and Coastal Zone Management (CZM), will be from an academic, university, or research institute nr na +inal estuary program and not directly involved with any consulting firm. Additionally, this individual will be independent without any material relationship with the PBSD, the Pelican Bay Foundation or Collier County government. The review of the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis Report is proposed to be conducted at the beginning of °ate the development of the water flushing /circulation model. It is also recommended that the cost of this effort be split between the PBSD and CZM. "Its The current financial commitment from the PBSD is only for the PBSD report evaluation. the intent with env deyelepmont of the management plan(s) that may be n at d After the peer review of the Final PBSD report is completed and distributed, the PBSD will consider participating in the peer review of other studies or reports that includes the Clam Bay NRPA. Consideration A thorough review of the PBSD report should involve a number of critical sciences. Among others, these disciplines would involve water quality, marine biology, modeling /hydrology, geology, and natural estuary/ecosystems. and With reopen +t„ the pmp ed water Geller.tiOR methedele10 The water quality expertise that is required for the PBSD report #eye is not just the review and analysis to state standards but also expertise with respect to the proactive development of our specific water quality standards for the Clam Bay estuary system and the establishment of our own multi -year estuary management program that will address critical water quality issues as opposed to having FDEP establish solutions. While other skill sets are important, the vast majority of the reviewer expertise needs to be focused in these discipline areas. 1611 819 14 August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PBS&J Report Page 5 of 20 Activities to be performed during this 1* tiaf Peer Review 1. Review, analysis and critique of the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report dated October 2009 performed by PBSU to include: • Analysis of all available historical data including the Services Division's historical data /information. • Accuracy and sufficiency of the data collection efforts undertaken in the development of the PBSU Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report given the fragile nature of the Clam Bay NRPA, the contracting constraints and ability to augment data with future collection. and the appliGability of using • Accuracy of methodologies used in the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report performed by PBSU. • Appropriateness of findings, aad conclusions, recommendations, and summary of the report. Evaluation of Proposals Already pre- identified candidates by the PBSD and CMZ/CAC will be solicited to submit credentials and proposals to perform a Peer Review of the PBSU Data Collection and Analysis report. . The Collier County purchasing department would confirm with the PBSD Chairman and the CAC Chairman the proposed list of candidates to be approached and then initiate this solicitation. Solicitations for RFP to each candidate will be recorded onto a log and the log provided to PBSD and CZM /CAC. All proposals will be jointly evaluated and must be acceptable to both Collier County Coastal Zone Management /CAC and the Pelican Bay Services Division. The Evaluation and Selection process is outlined as follows: 1. Candidates will submit their qualifications, experiences, related work history and schedule for consideration. This summary should not be more that 4 pages in total length and focus on water quality, marine biology, hydrology, geology, and natural estuary /ecosystems. an4 2. Selection will be based on a total composite score. This score will be based on knowledge, experience, work history and background in similar ecosystems as per the criteria listed in item one above. Schedule will also be considered in this evaluation. 3. The Pelican Bay Services Division will perform their own independent evaluation and submit their three top candidates for discussion. Coastal Zone Management/CAC will do the same. The six potential candidates will be jointly evaluated by a committee consisting of The Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Vice Chair of the Pelican Bay Services Division, and the director /Manager of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Chairman of the CAC, the Vice Chair of the CAC and the Director of the CZM. This group will select and recommend the final candidate. 4. The final selection must be approved by both the Pelican Bay Services Division board and the CZM /CAC. The final candidate will also be approved by the BCC. ResnickL Subject: RE: Peer Review (of PBS&1 Report) Scope of Work - -- Original Message---- - m: John Chandler [mailto :jpcbac @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 3:07 PM To: ResnickL Subject: RE: Peer Review (of PBS &J Report) Scope of Work Lisa, L6 B�9 9 usl4 010 - r 6a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Work for peer Review of prS&J Report Page 6 of 20 I am comfortable with both the draft for the Peer Review Scope of Work and the draft for the Concerns about the Clain Bay Estuary Modeling Study. John Chandler From: ResnickL [mai Ito: LResn ick@colliergov.net] Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:54 PM To: Geoffrey S. Gibson Oosiegeoff @aol.com); Hunter H. Hansen (Hunter.Hanseiaa hilton.com); Johan (John) Domenie (hobodory @comcast.net); John Baron Obaron @watersideshops.com); John Iaizzo (iaizzo @comcast.net); John P. Chandler (jpcbac @comcast.net); Keith J. Dallas (keithdallas @comcast.net); Mary Anne Womble (Teedupl @aol.com); Michael Levy (mikelevy @embargmail.com); Theodore Raia (tedraia @yahoo.com); Tom Cravens (nfn16799 @naples.net) Cc: McCaughtiyMary; lukasz_k; Jim Powers Oim @dmgfl.com) Subject: Peer Review (of PBS &J Report) Scope of Work On behalf of Chairman Dallas, please see below and attached. - - - -- Original Message - - - -- in: Keith Dallas [mailto:keithdallas @comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 1:29 PM To: ResnickL Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: Peer Review Scope of Work Lisa, Would you please email this out to PBSD Board members and other interested members of the Pelican Bay community. Attach the 4 items mentioned below. As was agreed at yesterday's PBSD meeting, we will revise the draft of the Peer Review Scope of Work as presented at the meeting to include PBSD Board members and other interested parties comments received by July 19th. Items to be included with this email are: * Draft of Peer Review Scope of Work as presented to PBSD July 7, 2010 * Draft of letter titled Concerns about Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study dated July 7, 2010 * Motion passed by Board of Collier County Commissioners April 2008 regarding Clam Bay Motion passed by Board of Collier County Commissioners December 15, 2009 regarding peer review of PBS &J Report of October 2009 Interested individuals are encouraged to submit comments on the scope of work draft and the draft of our concerns letter. Genera 1 comments and concerns are helpful, but the most useful comments are those which propose specific language changes. Those persons who commented on an earlier draft should revise where appropriate and resubmit comments. The intent is to consolidate .re feasible the various comments into the drafts , and then smooth the language for readability. As we agreed, comments must be received by Lisa Resnick by Monday July 19th to be included in the revised draft. The following schedule will apply: 1 of 2 7/19/2010 8:25 AM by LR August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PBS&! Report * Comments received at PBSD office by Monday July 19, 2010 page 7 0126 11 * Revised drafts incorporating comments prepared for August PBSD meeting B119 Revised draft of Peer Review Scope of Work and revised draft of Concern about Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study wil lcluded in package with proposed agenda for Regular PBSD meeting of August 4, 2010, entire package to be available Niunday July 26, 2010. Please send the comments only to Lisa Resnick at the above address. Do not copy to PBSD Board members since this could be considered in violation of Sunshine Rules. It is our intent to distribute the received comments along with the revised drafts as part of the August 4 PBSD meeting package. Our objective for the August 4, 2010 PBSD meeting is to finalize these two drafts, recognizing that our initial discussions on Peer Review of the PBS &J Report started in December 2009, and to not finalize these drafts on August 4th would give our critics ample ammunition to say that Pelican Bay is not being cooperative. We have put enormous effort into this peer review concept to date, and I would hate to see it end in failure because of an inability to agree on specific language. Writing by committee is never - easy, but with the right attitude, we should be able to move on in this process. Keith Lisa Resnick Administrative Assistant Pelican Bay Services Division A Municipal Service Taxing & Benefit Unit of Collier County Florida 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 Tel. 239.597.1749 Fax 239.597.4502 Iresn ick(cDcol liergov.net ' / /pelicanbayservicesdivision.net < http : //pelicanbayservicesdivision .net /> 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. 2 of 2 7/19/2010 8:25 AM by LR August 4, 2010 - 6 a 50 b n%4 TTQ* 1 Pelican Boy Services Division Board Regular `y Finalize Scope of Work for peer Review of pBSBJ Report I l Page 8 of 20 16 1 s�„kt71V19%% Clam Bay Estuary 3+ ^ROM Peer Review Scope of Work Suggestions for improvements to the PBSD Draft Peer Review Scope of Work to more closely reflect the discussion and member comment at the PBSD June 2, 2010 meeting: Background First paragraph - add "NRPA" to end of sentence, to read Clam Bay Estuary NRPA. Second paragraph, second sentence - remove water quality and replace with "historical ". The sentence would be stated ...review all available historical data. Second paragraph, third sentence - remove "or national estuary program ". Third paragraph - either remove everything after the second sentence, or change the third sentence as follows - remove "Although" and place a period after evaluation. Either end it there or add a fourth sentence to state - Only after the Peer Review of the PBSJ "Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis" is done, would PBSD consider participating in further Review on additional Clam Bay reports, or studies, The PBSD will not commit to any additional participation until this first Peer Review selection process for a reviewer is complete and the result of the Peer Review provided to the PBSD Board. Consideration First paragraph, second sentence - remove everything after natural estuary/ ecosystems, as it's redundant due to "water quality" already mentioned in the first sentence. The PBSD is not at this time committing to anything other than what is necessary for the Independent Peer Review of the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis report. Second paragraph - remove entire paragraph for reasons already stated. The PBSD reserves the ability to participate on further participation until after this Peer Review is done. Activities Second bullet- Add "accuracy and" to start of sentence. To state Accuracy and suffiencv of the data collection efforts... Place a period after the word report. No excuses or allowances should be built into the Review for lack or failure of the report's sufficiency or accuracy. Third bullet - Add "accuracy and sufficiency of" to start of sentence. To state Accuracy and Sufficiency of Methodologies used... Fourth bullet - Add "Appropriatef" to start of sentence and add " recommendations, and summary that is attached to the report " at end of sentence. To state, 042 August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PBSW Report Page f 0 i1 B 1 Appropriate findings, conclusion, recommendations and summary that is attached to the report. Evaluation of Proposals First paragraph, first sentence - add "Already" to start of sentence and "by the PBSD and CMZ /CAC ". Add "and proposals" after credentials. Second sentence - remove entirely. Third sentence - add in conjunction with the PBSD Chairman and CAC Chairman approvals of the list containing those candidates being solicited by the Purchasing Department. Solicitations for RFP to each candidate will be recorded onto a log and the log provided to the PBSD and CZM /CAC. Item 1. - second sentence - add "Florida water quality standards /guidelines" and a period after natural estuary /ecosystems. Remove remainder of sentence. Item 2. - second sentence - place period after ecosystems and remove remainder of that sentence. Leave third sentence as is. Item 3. - Third sentence - add "full PBSD Board and Full CAC Board ", after jointly evaluated by... To read The six potential candidates will be jointly evaluated by the Full PBSD Board and Full CAC Board. Remove everything else after this sentence, submitted by Tom Cravens. for July7. 2010 PBSD meeting. 2 •*41k fL ResnickL Subject: RE: A favor - Original Message---- - n: Gwen Rasiwala [ mailto :grasiwala @pelicanbay.org] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 6:35 PM To: ResnickL Subject: Fw: A favor Gwen O. Rasiwala Community Center Manager Community Center at Pelican Bay 239 -597 -8877 ext 101 From: Johan Domenie <hobodory @comcast.net> To: Gwen Rasiwala Sent: Thu Jul 15 17:44:13 2010 Subject: A favor I am having trouble communicating by e -mail with Lisa Resnick at the PBSD> Could you forward the following to her from me, please? Thanks John Suggested changes as requested: .CKGROUND Proposed wording for the first paragraph: August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PBSW Report Page 10 of 20 1611 819 "During their regular December meeting, the Board of Collier County Commissioners approved an independent peer review of the work performed (dated...........) by PBS &J. This peer review must be completed and approved by the PBSD and the Coastal Zone Management prior to the development of a comprehensive management plan of the Clam Bay NRPA. Such a future comprehensive management plan of the NRPA excludes the bays to the south: Venetian Bay & Moorings Bay." Question: why should the PBSD contribute financially to any studies being made in the city's bays ? ? ? ?? Specifically the BCC authorized the following Resolution: ............................................ ............................... To complete this peer review analysis, a thorough review of all available historical data, including the PBSD historical data is required. (Since I do not have the exact wording of the BCC Resolution I do not know if we have to include the following): The selected expert, jointly selected by the PBSD and CZM will be from an academic, university or research institute, and not directly involved with any consulting entity. This expert will be independent without any relationship with the PBSD, the Pelican Bay Foundation or Collier County Government. In the second paragraph eliminate "early in the development" and substitute "before ". I realize that some of the work for the .1opment of the water flushing /circulation model has started, but I do not understand how this work can proceed if the a. - ilable data is incorrect or not available. In the next to the last line of the second paragraph insert "peer" after the word "Program ". 1 of 2 7/19/2010 9:07 AM by LR August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Do we need the last paragraph on page One? Finalize Scope of Workfor Peer Review of PBSW Report Page 11 of 20 At the top of page two eliminate the word "initial ". 1611 6.ouldn ' t the first l m e read: "I.- Review, analyze and critique...." Not "analysis". Should we also include any data developed by Turrell Hall and Humiston & Moore ?? Should "Clam Bay System" be defined — again ? ?? Just some thoughts John 2 of 2 7/19/2010 9:07 AM by LR Attached please find my comments to the July 1, 2010 - Rev. 5 Scope of Work. Mike Levy mikelevv a.embaramail.com 1 of 1 7/19/2010 9:02 AM by LR August 4, 2010 - 6 a Resnick` P Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular From: M Mike Levy [mikelevy @embargma il.com] F Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PBS&I Report Sent: F Friday, July 16, 2010 5:10 PM P P To: R Resnick` a 161 1 B19 1 of 1 7/19/2010 9:02 AM by LR August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PBSW Report Page 13 of it, 819 Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work Background Change first paragraph to read: During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the BCCC's approved an independent peer review of the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report prepared by PBS &J and dated October, 2009. Furthermore, the approval motion states that the Independent expert is to be jointly selected by Coastal Zone Management and the Pelican Bay Services Division. Second Paragraph: Delete 1'st sentence. Remove "national estuary program" from 3'rd sentence. Add two sentences to the end, "Ideally, the peer review should be completed before a Water Circulation/ Flushing Modeling Program is undertaken by Coastal Zone Management. In any case, it should be undertaken as soon as possible." Delete the Third Paragraph. Cwsiderations First Paragraph` End the second sentence as follows: "---geology, natural estuary/ecosystems." (PBSD is not part of the water flushing/ circulation model program). Delete the Second Paragraph. Activities to be performed during the Peer Review I agree with the changes proposed by Tom Cravens in his email for the July 7, 2010 PBSD Board Meeting. Evaluation of Proposals First Paragraph; no comment. Item 1. End the second sentence as follows: "------ - - - - -- marine biology, hydrology, geology, and natural estuary/ ecosystems." (The reference to the water flushing/ circulation model program has been deleted). Item 3. 1 am in agreement with Tom Cravens email distributed at the PBSD July 7, 2010 board meeting. f_ •ti ResnickL August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Subject: RE: friendly reminder... Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PBSBJ Report - - Original Message - - - -- Page 14 of 20 a: Theodore Raia [niailto:tedraia @ yahoo.com] 1611 1 9 Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:30 PM �,J To: ResnickL Subject: Re: friendly reminder... Lisa, I thought I sent my priority list. I don't have any comments about the peer review except that I am more concerned about the actions of Steve Feldhaus and the foundation committee. I will be at the August meeting. Ted - -- On Mon, 7/19/10, ResnickL <LResnickacolliereov.net> wrote: From: ResnickL <LResnick @colliergov.net> Subject: friendly reminder... To: "Geoffrey S. Gibson Oosiegeoff @aol.com)" <josiegeoff @aol.com >, "Hunter H. Hansen (Hunter.Hansen @hilton.com)" <Hunter.Hansen @hilton.com >, "Johan (John) Domenie (hobodoiy @comcast.net)" <hobodory@comcast.net >, "John Baron obaron @watersideshops.com)" <jbaron @watersideshops.com >, "John Iaizzo (iaizzo @comcast.net)" <iaizzo @comcast.net >, "John P. Chandler Opcbac @comcast.net)" <jpcbac @comcast.net >, "Keith J. Dallas (keithdallas @comcast.net)" <keithdallas @comcast.net >, "Mary Anne Womble (Teedup I @aol.com)" <Teedupl @aol.com >, "Michael Levy (mikelevy @embarqmail.com)" <mikelevy @embarqmail.com >, "Theodore Raia (tedraia @yahoo.com)" <tedraia @yahoo.com >, "Tom Cravens (nfn I 6799@naples.net)" <nfn I 6799@naples.net> Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 11:47 AM Just a friendly reminder if you haven't turned in your community improvement plan priorities form, or comments regarding the peer review, please send them to me as soon as you can. Thanks, Lisa Resnick Aaministrative Assistant. Pelican Bay Services Division A Municipal Service Taxing & Benefit Unit of Collier County Florida 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 Tel. 239.597.1749 Fax 239.597.4502 fresnick@,colliergov.net http://pelicanbayservicesdivision.net < http:U pelicanbayservicesdivisioii.net/> 1 of 1 7/19/2010 1:06 PM by LR August 4, 2010 Mr. John Sorey III, Chairman Coastal Advisory Committee City of Naples 220 Gulfshore Blvd. N Naples, FL 34102 Mr. Anthony Pires, Chairman Clam Bay Subcommittee of CAC 209 Madison Drive Naples, FL 34108 RE: Concerns about Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study Dear Sirs: August 49 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PBS&J Report Page 15 of 20 1611 B19 The Pelican Bay Service Division Board is concerned that any assumptions used in the proposed Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study be fully vetted and only be used after the Clam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Final Report completed in October 2009 by PBS &J has been properly peer reviewed in its entirety. The results of any modeling are only as valid as the reliability of its input data. For instance, one of the criticisms of the PBS &J Report to date has questioned the very limited and unreliable tidal data collected within Clam Pass. The PBS &J Report concluded the data unreliable, and assumed it was similar to data collected in the Gulf in much deeper water. We feel such extrapolated data should be carefully peer reviewed before it becomes the basis of the Modeling Study. We encourage that this entire process be carefully vetted at each phase and the assumptions for future phases only be finalized after there is general agreement among experts as to the reasonableness of the results of each prior phase. To do otherwise will only serve to cast doubt on the validity of the final conclusions. Another concern of the Services Division is the way the Clam Bay Estuary has been defined to include bodies of water extending south to Doctor's Pass. In the pa9t, Clam Bay consisted only of the NRPA. We are concerned that actions taken to improve the water quality of Venetian Bay and Moorings Bay might harm the water quality of the Clam Bay NRPA. We therefore urge that any actions initiated because of subsequent studies only be taken after careful consideration of the fragile nature of the Clam Bay NRPA and the possibility of unintended consequences. Sincerely, Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Pelican Bay Services Division Board Cc: Leo Ochs Gary McAlpin August4,paly-17, 2010 Mr. John Sorey III, Chairman Coastal Advisory Committee City of Naples 220 Gulfshore Blvd. N Naples, FL 34102 Mr. Anthony Pires, Chairman Clam Bay Subcommittee of CAC 209 Madison Drive Naples, FL 34108 RE: Concerns about Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study Dear Sirs: August 4, 2010 -6a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PBS&/ Report Page 16 of 20 1611 B19 4 The Pelican Bay Service Division Board is concerned that any assumptions used in the proposed Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study be fully vetted and only be used finalized after the Clam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Final Report completed in October 2009 by PBS &j has been properly peer reviewed in its entirety. The results of any modeling are only as valid as the reliability of its input data. For instance, one of the criticisms of the PBS &j Report to date has questioned the very limited and unreliable tidal data collected within Clam Pass. The PBS &j Report concluded the data unreliable, and assumed it was similar to data 4at-e collected in the Gulf in much deeper water. We feel such extrapolated data should be carefully peer reviewed before it becomes the basis of the Modeling Study. We encourage that this entire process be carefully vetted at each phase and the assumptions for future phases only be finalized after there is general agreement among experts as to the reasonableness of the results of each prior phase. To do otherwise will only serve to cast doubt on the validity of the final conclusions. Another concern of the Services Division is the way the Clam Bay Estuary has been defined to include bodies of water extending south to Doctor's Pass. In the past, Clam Bay consisted only of the NRPA. Although definitions by themselves are probably not imper -ta +A, We are concerned Nver that somehow future projeets actions taken to improve the water quality in the T ateF ('lam Bay extending to De ^°'s Pass of Venetian Bay and Moorings Bay might ultimately harm the water quality of the Clam Bay NRPA. ^° trad- itionally .74ned by t''^ Services I)Ai . We therefore urge that any actions initiated because of subsequent studies only be taken after careful consideration of the fragile nature of the Clam Bay NRPA and the possibility of unintended consequences. Sincerely, Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Pelican Bay Services Division Board Cc: Leo Ochs Gary McAlpin Lisa: refer to the proposed letter to Sorey & Pires. August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of P8s&/ Report Page 17 of 20 1611 Big In the second paragraph I believe there is a misprint: "date" should read "data ". In the last paragraph I would eliminate the word "traditional" and just state "Clam Bay as defined by the BCC in April 2008" Provided that is the correct definition. Mr. john Sorey I11, Chairman Coastal Advisory Committee City of Naples 220 Gulfshore Blvd. N Naples, FL 34102 Mr. Anthony Pires, Chairman Clam Bay Subcommittee of CAC 209 Madison Drive Naples, FL 34108 August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PBS&J Report Page 18 of 20 July 7,2010 1611 � 9 RE: Concerns about Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study Dear Sirs: �. i The Pelican Bay Service Division Board is conce' MeJ `that an assn n do s: used in the proposed Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study bef'ullY vetted ani .i?ii.y er the;CIam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Final Report completed in Ocfotier 2009 by PB§Q has been properly peer reviewed:iF :its entirety. The results of any ngde ing are only as.vali0 as the reliability of its input data: For instance,. one of the criticisms PBS & j:Repoit - to: date has:questioned the veryIimited and unreliable .tidal data.eollected within eaE-- Cl'..* Bass Th:e PBSB Report concluded the data unreliable, and assumed it was smijar to olleeted 'in the .gulf in much deeper water. We feel such extrapolated data should he careft y 'peer reviewed'before it becomes the basis of the Modeling Study; We eiicourage;tIiat this entire process be carefialiy vette�.at each phase and the assumptions for future phases o. l y be finalized after there as .general agreement among experts as to the reasd ableness of theres,ults of eaeh pri "r: '� ase. To do otherwise will only serve to cast doubt on the:validity of the finateonclusiQns Another concern of tlieSi r.Mces Divisiori is the way the Clam Bay Estuary has been defined to include bod!6e;'b4water extendingsouth to Doctor's Pass. Although definitions by themselves are-probably'notimpoi=tant, we worry that somehow future projects to improve water quality in the great& Clam Bay extending to Doctor's Pass might ultimately harm the water quality of Clain Bay as y defined by Ae.� n_� We therefore urge that any actions initiated because of subsequent studies o be taken after careful consideration of the fragile nature offlam Bay and the possibility of uni tended consequences. Sincerely, \ 6 CG oN fW 1%) L., 2&0 8 Keith J. Dallas, Chairman - Pelican Bay Services Division Board Cc: Leo Ochs Gary McAlpin review underway, but are faced with language attempting to enlarge the task to include water circulation modeling and an overall Clam Bay Management Plan. The attached draft reflects my concern that an attempt is being made to make it look like PBSD is part of the overall Clam Bay project; that we are not and want to get the peer review of the PBS &J Report underway as we originally proposed and was approved by the BCCC. Mike Levy mikeleyy@enibarymail.com 1 of 1 711912010 9:03 AM by LR August 4, 2010 - 6 a ResnickL Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Wark for Peer Review of PBS&J Report From: Mike Levy [mikelevy @embargmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 16,20103:51 PM Page 19 of 20 To: ResnickL Subject: Concerns about Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study ments: scan0001.pdf 1611 � Attached please find my take on the draft "Concerns About Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study ". I have changed the title to "Peer Review of PBS &J Report dated-------- - - - - -- and have added another dimension to the letter; that PBSD would like to get the peer review underway, but are faced with language attempting to enlarge the task to include water circulation modeling and an overall Clam Bay Management Plan. The attached draft reflects my concern that an attempt is being made to make it look like PBSD is part of the overall Clam Bay project; that we are not and want to get the peer review of the PBS &J Report underway as we originally proposed and was approved by the BCCC. Mike Levy mikeleyy@enibarymail.com 1 of 1 711912010 9:03 AM by LR August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PBS&J Report Page 20 of 20 To: John Sorey 111, Chairman Coastal Advisory Committee 1611 Anthony Pires, Chairman Clam Bay Subcommittee of CAC Subject: Peer Review of PBS&J Clam Bay System Data Collection Analysis Report dated October, 2009. Dear Sirs: PBSD has serious concerns regarding the validity of the methodology and conclusions of subject report. Our concerns are further heightened as this report is apparently being used as the basis of a Clam Bay Water Circulation /Flushing Modeling Program and possibly further work in Clam Bay. Accordingly We proposed, and the county agreed to a jointly sponsored PBSD/ CZM peer review of subject report. The BCCC approved the joint peer review of subject report on December 15, 2009 and we would very much like to see it underway. We are troubled that the flawed subject report is being used by PBS &J as the basis for further studies in Clam Bay, paid for by Collier County Taxpayers. The results of any modeling are only as valid as the reliability of its input data. So what is holding up getting the Peer Review of subject report underway? From our point of view, it is language added into each draft Scope of Work that attempts to include a Water Circulation /Flushing Modeling Program as well as the development of a comprehensive management plan for Clam Bay. The implication being that somehow PBSD is a part of this overall effort. This is simply not true; PBSD is not in any way part of the CAC activities in Clam Bay. We simply asked for a peer review of subject report, strongly support the BCCC approval of same, and would like to see it underway. We would like to finalize the Peer Review Scope of Work with the CAC (without added tasks). The PBSD Board has approved only a peer review of the subject PBS &1 report. Another concern of the PBSD is that the CAC is using the term Clam Bay to include bodies of water extending south to Doctor's Pass. In the past, Clam Bay consisted only of the NRPA. We are concerned that actions taken to improve the water quality of Venetian Bay and Moorings Bay might harm the water quality of the Clam Bay NRPA. As you may be aware, Pelican Bay residents spend in the area of $1M a year to maintain the water quality of the Clam Bay NRPA. We therefore urge that any actions initiated because of subsequent studies only be taken after careful consideration of the fragile nature of Clam Bay NRPA, and the possibility of unintended consequences. Sincerely, Keith J. Dallas, Chairman PBSD Cc: Leo Ochs, Gary McAlpin From: Keith Dallas To: Resnick Cc: Neff Dorrill Subject: Proposed Draft pf Peer Review Scope of Work Date: Friday, July 30, 2010 2:24:04 PM Attachments: Peer Review Draft ES - 8- 3- 1.dooc ATT00001..htm Peer Review Draft ES - 8- 3- 2.docx ATT00002..htm Clam Bay Sub 7 -21 -10 discussion item.odf AT M0003..htm August 4, 2010 - 6a - Appendix A Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session i611 g19 a Lisa, Attached are revised drafts of the Peer Review Scope of Work (one in final form, and one showing the initial changes in red and subsequent changes in blue). Please distribute them along with my explanation to PBSD board members and the interested public in anticipation of discussion at the PBSD meeting of August 4th. First, for some background on what has happened since our last PBSD meeting. After our meeting, I updated Gary McAlpin and the Clam Bay Subcommittee on the discussions at our July PBSD meeting and tried to address the concern that the PBSD and CZM were never going to agree on a peer review process (see Gary McAlpin's July 8th email to CAC that was distributed earlier). I said we had spent a lot of effort on this, and hoped we could resolve the language in August. After discussions with Steve Feldhaus, CZM subsequently has concluded that it prefers to split the Clam Bay issues into 2 segments, the review of the PBS&J report continuing with the PBSD, and future projects like water circulation modeling being with the Foundation (See 7/21/10 Clam Bay Subcommittee agenda item Clam Bay Sub - Committee Peer Review Discussion attached). After receiving comments from individuals, we took those comments and the ones received at our last meeting, and incorporated as many of the comments as possible into the July 23rd draft. On Thursday I had a meeting with Gary McAlpin of CZM to review the July 23rd proposed language to see if he would recommend their acceptance by the CAC and the Clam Bay Subcommittee. After much discussion we agreed to present the attached draft including the changes in blue to both organizations. The rationale for the changes: * We wanted everyone to understand that the proposed language is a "guideline document ". We recognize that there are concerns that this language may be manipulated by others. The idea of a "guideline" recognizes that each group may interpret the words differently, and that the ultimate fail safe is that each group (the PBSD and the CAC) will independently rank responding professionals using their own methods and priorities, and reserve the option of designating some responders as unacceptable to their organization. * Specifically, the new first paragraph deals with the "guidance" issue. * The second paragraph of "background" uses both "historical" and "water quality" data. The point is we want all the relevant data reviewed. * Gary wanted the reference to "national estuary program" left in definitions. I think this is an area where many Pelican Bay people are suspicious of such experts, but I see no harm in including the language as a possibility. PBSD has the option of saying a certain professional is unacceptable. * In the third "background" paragraph we left in "early in" the development of the water flushing /circulation model, versus "at the beginning of'. As some who commented on this language indicated, it is semantics since in one sense that project has already commenced. I think in our other letter we will emphasize the need to resolve the validity of the conclusions of the PBS&J report before going too far with any future modeling. * In the first paragraph of the "considerations" section, we left in a reference to "knowledge of Florida water quality standards /guidelines along with modeling, modeling data and collection methodologies ". Again this is an area where people may interpret the words differently. It was left in because the PBS&J report mentions these items and a thorough review should comment on the appropriateness of all their comments and conclusions. Again, different readers may have different opinions on the width and depth the reviewer should have in these areas. Page 1 of 9 07/30/2010 @ 2:44 PM August 4, 2010 - 6a - Appendix A Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 161 1 819 * Second bullet of "activities to be performed" section includes "the applicability of using the collected data in the proposed water circulation /flushing model program ". Since it is discussed in the PBS&J report it is better that it is discussed by the reviewer. * We kept in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the "evaluation of proposals" section, even though the first sentence probably says the same thing. * The rest of this draft is the same as the draft of Monday, July 23rd. I would like everyone to review all this language. Please recognize that everyone is most comfortable with the language he /she drafted themselves. I think we should review the language in its' entirety, and remember it is a guideline. Ultimately we will decide as a group which responders we will recommend in what order, and which are unacceptable on any basis. Time is quickly running out. It is my opinion that this meeting is probably the last opportunity the PBSD will be given to develop a peer review process with the County. If we don't come up with concrete language, we will be seen as a group with which the County can't work and they may take the PBS&J report to the FDEP for a rubber stamp. At Wednesday's meeting, after appropriate discussions of all members and concerned public, I would like to vote the proposed language either up or down. A yes vote would take us to the next steps, the request for proposals, the responses, the meeting for the PBSD and CZM /CAC to separately prioritize the responses etc. A no vote will stop the discussions and probably cause the County to go their own way. Page 2 of 9 07/30/2010 @ 2:44 PM August 4, 2010 - 6a - Appendix A Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1611 619 Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work March 15, 2010 March 19, 2010 —Rev. 1 June 25, 2010 — Rev. 2 June 30, 2010 — Rev. 3 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 4 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 5 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 6 July 23, 2010 — Rev. 7 July 29, 2010 — Rev 8 This is a guideline document developed by the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) and the Coastal Zone Management/Coastal Advisory Committee (CZM /CAC) with the intent of providing guidance to aid the PBSD and CZM /CAC in jointly selecting a peer reviewer for the October 2009 PBSD report described below. Background During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved an independent peer review of the October 2009 PBSD report and the work required to complete the development of a comprehensive management plan for the Clam Bay Estuary. Specifically, the BCC authorized that a recognized expert perform an independent review of the Final October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report completed by PBSD. To complete this analysis, a thorough review of all available historical /water quality data including the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) historical water quality data is required. This expert, jointly selected by PBSD and Coastal Zone Management (CZM), will be from an academic, university, research institute or national estuary program and not directly involved with any consulting firm. Additionally, this individual will be independent without any material relationship with the PBSD, the Pelican Bay Foundation or Collier County government. The review of the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis Report is proposed to be conducted early in the development of the water flushing /circulation model. It is also recommended that the cost of this effort be split between the PBSD and CZM. The current financial commitment from the PBSD is only for the PBSD report evaluation. After the peer review of the Final PBSD report is completed and distributed, the PBSD will consider participating in the peer review of other studies or reports that includes the Clam Bay NRPA. Consideration A thorough review of the PBSD report should involve a number of critical sciences. Among others, these disciplines would involve water quality, marine biology, modeling /hydrology, geology, natural estuary /ecosystems and knowledge of Florida water quality standards /guidelines along with modeling, modeling data and collection methodologies. The water quality expertise that is required for the PBSD report is not just the review and analysis to state standards but also expertise with respect to the proactive development of our specific water quality standards for the Clam Bay estuary system and the establishment of our own multi -year estuary management program that will address critical water quality issues as opposed to having FDEP establish solutions. While other skill sets are important, the vast majority of the reviewer expertise needs to be focused in these discipline areas. Page 3 of 9 07/30/2010 @ 2:44 PM August 4, 2010 - 6a - Appendix A Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 16 11 619 _Activities to be performed during this Peer Review 1. Review, analysis and critique of the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report dated October 2009 performed by PBS &J to include: • Analysis of all available historical data including the Services Division's historical data /information. • Accuracy and sufficiency of the data collection efforts undertaken in.the development of the PBS &J Clam Bay System Data Collection.and Analysis report given the fragile nature of the Clam Bay NRPA, the contracting constraints and ability to augment data with future collection and the applicability of using the collected data in the proposed water circulation /flushing model program. • Accuracy of methodologies used in the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report performed by PBS &J. • Appropriateness of findings, conclusions, recommendations, and summary of the report. Evaluation of Proposals Already pre- identified candidates by the PBSD and CMZ/CAC will be solicited to submit credentials and proposals to perform a Peer Review of the PBS &J Data Collection and Analysis report. Only pre- identified candidates will be allowed to submit proposals for evaluation. The Collier County purchasing department would confirm with the PBSD Chairman and the CAC Chairman the proposed list of candidates to be approached and then initiate this solicitation. Solicitations for RFP to each candidate will be recorded onto a log and the log provided to PBSD and CZM /CAC. All proposals will be jointly evaluated and must be acceptable to both Collier County Coastal Zone Management /CAC and the Pelican Bay Services Division. The Evaluation and Selection process is outlined as follows: 1. Candidates will submit their qualifications, experiences, related work history and schedule for consideration. This summary should not be more that 4 pages in total length and focus on water quality, marine biology, hydrology, geology, and natural estuary /ecosystems. 2. Selection will be based on a total composite score. This score will be based on knowledge, experience, work history and background in similar ecosystems as per the criteria listed in item one above. Schedule will also be considered in this evaluation. 3. The Pelican Bay Services Division will perform their own independent evaluation and submit their three top candidates for discussion. Coastal Zone Management/CAC will do the same. The six potential candidates will be jointly evaluated by a committee consisting of The Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Vice Chair of the Pelican Bay Services Division, and the director /Manager of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Chairman of the CAC, the Vice Chair of the CAC and the Director of the CZM. This group will select and recommend the final candidate. 4. The final selection must be approved by both the Pelican Bay Services Division board and the CZM /CAC. The final candidate will also be approved by the BCC. Page 4 of 9 07/30/2010 @ 2:44 PM August 4, 2010 - 6a - Appendix A Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1611 '819 Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work March 15, 2010 March 19, 2010 — Rev. 1 June 25, 2010 — Rev. 2 June 30, 2010 — Rev. 3 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 4 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 5 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 6 July 23, 2010 — Rev. 7 July 29, 2010 — Rev 8 This is a guideline document developed by the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) and the Coastal Zone Management/Coastal Advisory Committee (CZM /CAC) with the intent of providing guidance to aid the PBSD and CZM /CAC in jointly selecting a peer reviewer for the October 2009 PBSD report described below. Background During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved an independent peer review of the October 2009 PBSD report and the work required to complete the development of a comprehensive management plan for the Clam Bay Estuary. Specifically, the BCC authorized that a recognized expert perform an independent review of the Final October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report reo completed by PBSD. To complete this analysis, a thorough review of all available historical /water quality data including the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) historical water quality data is required. This expert, jointly selected by PBSD and Coastal Zone Management (CZM), will be from an academic, university, of research institute or national estuary program and not directly involved with any consulting firm. Additionally, this individual will be independent without any material relationship with the PBSD, the Pelican Bay Foundation or Collier County government. The review of the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis Report is proposed to be conducted at the hegiFlRing of early in the development of the water flushing /circulation model. It is also recommended that the cost of this effort be split between the PBSD and CZM. Although The current financial commitment from the PBSD is only for the PBSD report evaluation. theme - intent With aRY development of the management plan(s) that may be + d After the peer review of the Final PBSD report is completed and distributed, the PBSD will consider participating in the peer review of other studies or reports that includes the Clam Bay NRPA. Consideration A thorough review of the PBSD report should involve a number of critical sciences. Among others, these disciplines would involve water quality, marine biology, modeling /hydrology, geology, and natural estuary /ecosystems and with recce„++„ the pFoepos`a we knowledge of water q Safi+„ aPA- Florida water quality standards /guidelines along with modeling, modeling data and collection methodologies. The water quality expertise that is required for the PBSD report #e-re is not just the review and analysis to state standards but also expertise with respect to the proactive development of our specific water quality standards for the Clam Bay estuary system and the establishment of our Page 5 of 9 07/30/2010 @ 2:44 PM August 4, 2010 - 6a - Appendix A Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1611 B19 own multi -year estuary management program that will address critical water quality issues as opposed to having FDEP establish solutions. While other skill sets are important, the vast majority of the reviewer expertise needs to be focused in these discipline areas. Activities to be performed during this &IPA#af Peer Review 2. Review, analysis and critique of the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report dated October 2009 performed by PBS &J to include: • Analysis of all available historical data including the Services Division's historical data /information. • Accuracy and sufficiency of the data collection efforts undertaken in the development of the PBS &J Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report given the fragile nature of the Clam Bay NRPA, the contracting constraints and ability to augment data with future collection and the applicability of using the collected data in the proposed water circulation /flushing model program. • Accuracy of methodologies used in the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report performed by PBS &J. • Appropriateness of findings, aPA conclusions, recommendations, and summary of the report. Evaluation of Proposals Already pre- identified candidates by the PBSD and CMZ/CAC will be solicited to submit credentials and proposals to perform a Peer Review of the PBS &J Data Collection and Analysis report. Only pre - identified candidates will be allowed to submit proposals for evaluation. The Collier County purchasing department would confirm with the PBSD Chairman and the CAC Chairman the proposed list of candidates to be approached and then initiate this solicitation. Solicitations for RFP to each candidate will be recorded onto a log and the log provided to PBSD and CZM /CAC. All proposals will be jointly evaluated and must be acceptable to both Collier County Coastal Zone Management /CAC and the Pelican Bay Services Division. The Evaluation and Selection process is outlined as follows: 5. Candidates will submit their qualifications, experiences, related work history and schedule for consideration. This summary should not be more that 4 pages in total length and focus on water quality, marine biology, hydrology, geology, and natural estuary /ecosystems. aad . 6. Selection will be based on a total composite score. This score will be based on knowledge, experience, work history and background in similar ecosystems as per the criteria listed in item one above. Schedule will also be considered in this evaluation. 7. The Pelican Bay Services Division will perform their own independent evaluation and submit their three top candidates for discussion. Coastal Zone Management/CAC will do the same. The six potential candidates will be jointly evaluated by a committee consisting of The Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Vice Chair of the Pelican Bay Services Division, and the director /Manager of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Chairman of the CAC, the Vice Chair of the CAC and the Director of the CZM. This group will select and recommend the final candidate. 8. The final selection must be approved by aGGeptable tG both the Pelican Bay Services Division board and the CZM /CAC. The final candidate will also be approved by the BCC. Page 6 of 9 07/30/2010 @ 2:44 PM Au ust 4, 20 6a - Appendix A esj 'Wbaoard Regular Session 1UW ,�A.+,ewnc� l w z 1611 B19 7/21!10 Clam Bay Sub - Committee Peer Review Discussion Background At the 12/15/2009 BCC meeting the Board approved the following objective for Clam Bay: "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 June 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." Also during the considerations portion of the executive summary, the following was discussed and approved concerning Peer Review: "It is also recommended 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." The following budget was approved at that time: Fund 111 - Unincorporated Collier County Court Recording and Documentation Costs Water Quality Monitoring in Clam Bay System Chemicals and YSI probes lab Fees (9 locations for 12 months) Consulting and Analysis Support Public Outreach and Communication Peer Review Sediment toxicology Installation of Beach and Inlet Safety signs and Permitting Permitting and Installation of Navigational Markers in Clam Bay Estuary Wildlife and Habitat Preliminary Analysis Fund 111 Subtotal $3,400 $1,000 $18,000 $4,000 $1,000 $5,000 $30,000 $5,000 $15,000 $20,000 $102,400 Page 7 of 9 0713012010 @ 2:44 PM August 4, 2010 - 6a - Appendix A Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1611 'g19 .,j Although the PBSD was identified as the organization to jointly participate with CZM in the peer review, the PBSD has focused only on the peer review of the Data Collection and Analysis Report from PBSU not committed to the more important modeling program. PBSD has sought to limit their commitment/participation to this portion of the project. Additionally, they have proven very hard to reach agreement with on the scope of this peer review. The modeling program is the heart of the program and the area needed to concentrate our technical expertise on. The Pelican Bay Foundation has approached the County staff with a request to participate in the technical development and review of the modeling program with two independent qualified consultants. This proposal is acceptable to the County because: 1. It establishes a working relationship and framework with the Pelican Bay Community to discuss and address technical issues. 2. It is proposed in a collaborative working relationship as opposed to a critique format. 3. It provides additional technical expertise to confirm our focus, approach and conclusions. 4. The PB Foundation will pay for their own consultants with the only cost incurred by the County being to bring these consultants up to speed with the background and results to date. 5. It allows us to begin discussion and work of the modeling process. 6. While we are working on the technical issues of the modeling program with the PB Foundation, it allows us to continue to try to reach closure with the PBSD on the Peer Review of the PBSU Data Collection and Analysis report. Staff has reevaluated the existing budget and is recommending that the budget be reprogrammed to provide more money for Peer Review and that the peer review be reallocated into two phases: 1. One portion of the Peer Review would be the peer review of the PBSU Data Collection and Analysis report. This can be completed anytime when and if agreement is reached with the PBSD on the scope of this work. If agreement is not reached then FDEP has expressed a willingness to evaluate the report and comment on it accuracy and credibility. $4,500 has been set aside for the County portion of this work. 2. The second portion of this work is the technical participation and review of the modeling program. $25,000 has been set aside for this work which would involve bring the Foundations consultants up to speed and more group /discussion meetings to discuss scope, review results and formulate next steps and findings. Page 8 of 9 07/30/2010 @ 2:44 PM Our revised budget projections are as follows: Fund 111 - Unincorporated Collier County Court Recording and Documentation Costs Water Quality Monitoring in Clam Bay System Chemicals and YSI probes lab Fees (9 locations for 12 months) Consulting and Analysis Support Public Outreach and Communication Peer Review of the PBSD Report - PBSD Peer Review of Modeling - PB Foundation Sediment toxicology Beach /Inlet Safety signs and Permitting Permit/install Nav Markers in Clam Bay Wildlife and Habitat Preliminary Analysis August 4, 2010 - 6a - Appendix A Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1611 B19 Budget Revised Spent Available To Go $3,400 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $500 $1,000 $800 $800 $0 $0 $18,000 $15,000 $12,500 $2,500 $2,500 $4,000 $4,000 $0 $4,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $4,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,0130 $30,000 $30,000 $31,831 - $1,831 - $1,831 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $15,000 $15,000 $0 $15,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 Total $102,400 $97,800 $47,131 $50,669 $50,669 A recommendation is sought to move forward with this plan. The latest revision to the PBSD peer review program is attached. Page 9 of 9 07/30/2010 @ 2:44 PM ResnickL Subject: John Domenie 8/4/10 RE: Peer Review 161 B19 - - - -- Original Message - - - -- 1 F - -)m: Johan Domenie [mailto:hobodory@comcast.net] _t: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 11:49 PM To: ResnickL Subject: Peer Review Lisa: I have just come back from seeing "Norma" at the Silverspot Cinema, and this is probably not the best time to start writing a very important memo. However we will have a full agenda tomorrow and I would like you to distribute this memo to everyone by e- mail as soon as possible — and possibly bring some copies to the meeting for those who did not open their a -mails before the meeting. In first place I think all of us have to be very grateful for all the time and effort Keith is dedicating to the matter of "Peer Review ". Many of us probably could not put up with facing and listening to Gary's interpretations of items relating to the Peer Review — and other matters. So, Keith — many thanks for your efforts to produce a workable document. I will number my comments so that they are easily identified: 1.- Why has the "CZM subsequently concluded that it (CZM) prefers to split the Clam Bay issues into 2 segments ". I can not understand the reasoning behind this suggestion — except that the negotiations with the Ad -Hoc Committee are expected to drag on until January next year — before something in writing may be ready to be presented to the BCC. 2.- I fail to understand the opening paragraph of the proposed "Peer Review Scope of Work ". This is not a firm document — it is merely a guideline — and in the explanation it goes on to say "each group may interpret the words differently "! So we are saying that the whole document will be open to debate and open to interpretation. Among such interpretations could be the term "Clam — we interpret it one way, the CZM interprets it differently — who then decides. NO! This is not to be a guideline but a firm document without any room for "interpretations ". This opening paragraph can not and must not be accepted. Who came up with this wording and why? 3.- In the third paragraph the words "national estuary program" AGAIN appear, even though at our July 7th Board meeting a motion was unanimously passed to strike such wording from the proposed Peer Review. Was the CZM made aware of this. We DO NOT want this in the Peer Review document. The comment states that we have the option of stating that a certain professional is not acceptable. If it is not acceptable do not include it in this document. 4.- I read "In our letter we will emphasize the need to resolve the validity of the conclusions of the PBS &J Report before going too far..." Again, let's make sure we state what we want. 5.- In the next paragraph of the cover memo it twice mentions that different items can be interpreted differently by different readers. Such comments are totally unacceptable, as we are then already admitting that certain problems exist and we do not want to define them at this time. Let's not leave ANY door open for the CZM to interpret words or phrases to suit his ends. 6.- "Ultimately we will decide as a group which responders we will recommend in what order, and which are unacceptable on any basis." What happens if we can not agree with the CZM on a name to conduct the Peer Review? It will then most likely go to the CAC or the BCC who will have to side with the CZM — and he will have the final say — we lose! 7.- Yes, time is running out — but the CZM keeps inserting language which we have already rejected in the past — wear us down until we accept is his policy. I think we would welcome the County to take the PBS &J Report to the FDEP — the FDEP would be snowed under with letters from us, the Conservancy et al. If the County sends the letter to the FDEP, the County will end up with a very bad black mark on their face. Let's not be pressured with such meaningless "threats" by the CZM. 8.- Nowhere do I see a clear definition in the opening paragraphs of the area to be covered. Later on there is some reference to the NRPA — but the area must be defined clearly. Are there not better definitions available? 1 of 2 8/4/2010 8:17 AM by LR 9.- On the actual Peer Review — Page one, 4th paragraph insert "October 2009" PBS &J rep1t a All a sentence remove "that includes" and substitute with "of'. 10.- Under the first paragraph of "Considerations" I would change the opening sentence to: "The water quality expertise that is required to perform a Peer Review of the October 2009 PBS &J Report ......... standards for the Clam Bay estuary system as .ned herein ". 11.- Top of page two — eliminate the first sentence — because the CZM refers to the "estuary management program" — perhaps we would like to have the FDEP establish solutions for the "estuary "! 12.- the next paragraph starts with "2." — where and what is "1 ". 13.- item "5." Not "that" but "than ". Then leave out "water quality" 14.- Item `.`6." — Who will determine the methodology to come up with a "total composite score ". Incidentally there is no "item one above ". 15.- In item "T' — I would like to balance out the people who will act as an evaluation committee, by adding the President of the Mangrove Action Group and a representative from the Conservancy — each of whom have more "in hand" experience than the others. These are some thought I have. This process has been going on for many months. It appears every time we come up with a draft, the CZM re- inserts items which we have indicated are not acceptable to us. Let's send a final document — not a draft — to the CAC and CZM — a non - negotiable document — not a "guideline ". If they do not accept it we can forward the Peer Reviews we already have in hand — together with the October 2009 PBS &J report to the FDEP — together with a copy of our final document. 2 of 2 8/4/2010 8:17 AM by LR 151 1 819 August 4, 2010 - 6b (revised 8/3/10) Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Community Improvement Plan Priorities Re: Comments on CIP Summary Worksheets Date: 7/26/2010 From: Keith Dallas Attached are worksheets summarizing the priorities selected by each P13SD Board member, as well as a total average priority scores. There are two sets of sheets: • The first set shows the results in the order the items were on the original sheets. • The second set ranks the items from highest priority (lowest average priority score) to lowest priority (highest average priority score). • The second sheet also shows the accumulative probable cost for all items with that or a higher priority. The raw selections made by individuals have been modified to make each person's selection process consistent with all other members' selections, as follows: • To the extent that individuals used the same priority number twice, we have renumbered to use each priority number only once (giving the higher priority to the first duplicate number seen on the original sheet). • To the extent that items were left blank, we assumed they were the lowest priority, again assigning numbers in the order each item is seen on the original sheet. • One individual set priorities for items designated "Foundation ", so we removed those selections from the sheet and renumbered the remainder of "PBSD" items accordingly. Some other modifications were made to improve the understandability of the results: • Where alternative choices were available, we combined the basic and each alternative results to obtain a single average priority score (for example, see item D1 -F at bottom of first page). • Probable Cost on item D1 -D middle of first page were increased to include prorata share of Contingency and Design /Permit Fee costs. • Items that the original sheets showed as "per ramp" have been changed to show total probable cost (item D2 -A: we went back to the report to use the number that reflected the number of expected ramps). It is my hope that these two sets of Summary Sheets will be used as follows: • By the Budget Committee to begin the process of thinking what these priorities will mean to future PBSD budgets, and how the PBSD should approach implementing at least some of these projects over the years. Pagel o1`8 C,8/03/2010 at 3:03 PM 1611 B19'- August 4, 2010 - 6b (revised 8/3/10) Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Community Improvement Plan Priorities • For each of us to study and to think if we would change any of our priorities after seeing this more total picture. • As the starting point of a special PBSD meeting to review these priorities and decide where we go from here. • By the author of the first draft of an executive summary that will be attached to the Wilson Miller report and describe the tentative priorities that have been developed by the PBSD and the Strategic Planning Committee for their respective areas. There is a lot here to digest. Happy reading. We will discuss at our August 4th meeting when we should schedule a special meeting to review these priority sheets. Page 2 of 8 08/0312010 at 3:03 PM 0 N N U `m N N !r o � p l0 .` m c c yya d E •.- w E � N d .Z o a o U) E E E rn 0 E QdU 16-11 R19 E N O O N N lD t• M N 3 z" N tT N d N 10 O M a N M Q) O C C M m N i J2 E d y N 10 V 'V' M O 0) t0 co N M o m CD C E N M COY (A y Lo O t0 t- m O O N n ❑ o N d N O N N to t7 M m r w y U T N m C M 0 ? V N N N N N U e M N N N N N N N N N co dm N tO') C '� O N O t.Oj r N O t0 N n r fr t0 •0 N tV a` N c'7 N CD )` O O T N N t'! w ❑ m Co Co x x x x x x x x x x x x x ; C LL 0 LL N U) m ad, a O O O O O CO Cl) Q) u) N t` O tD O O O : m O M to W CO N to co M [O 'V' M O h O O) (D Q) fA ti O M to N tD t` 00 r CO tD (D EfT O V N tD fA tD fH N M N t0 to N U). t0 EA t0 Hi 0) to 6R} W F9 fA 3 3 C6 a E a E a a a a a a a .5 s y d O d 0 d 0 d 0 d 0 d 0 d 0 d 0 d 0 d 0 d N O a ul adz 3 o _ -_ o a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a o a O c o a 0 Q 0 a 0 `c. - - - - - -- - -- p t- C a a m a a a a a a a a °„ a U m E 5 C M O1 C d C M t>) C C M O j C C M IS C C M lT C C M 0I C c M IA C C M O) C C M m C d C M m j C C M m a u n ON - m O1 N _ N _ _ N _ _ N _ IL X Q co X y X X d x> •N X X> N X j X Q N X N X Y W ° - d .D qa pa d d y a m d a d 'a d 13 d d ` a Qa d d a d d as GOORG O N O d to d ` 3 d d ` Q d p' ` C d Y d Y d M O d ` N d -.g O O• d •Y ` Up d Y _y-�P1 -Oyyyy M d M M 7 M M a M M O M M M l9 ° `o `e `o `o =E °1E E� E T Ew E E 3 E� ErE E EY2 cc.c _'A22 C C y =a °C SC a aTa a7a a ma y a O a Ma M'"cc "d' 000a`o "^ O N C tp M M C�C(�C(�C M M M M C M.° C`CZ M M C=CQ� M M _---- _._._._._ zz M O C Y - u a a a a a d a d a m d a d a d a d a d E E aaaaaaEQ¢aa E E E c cE E E E r � A t acv E C> z rnm C •O rn— C a a)> C a m> C a rn> C •p Lm C m C m C a rn> C a rn> C m_ rn>= =z<<<<<<E _ F' E N n A N N N m N m lIl m N U) � d d m t/) m N m E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E O M E° v E M a `y a >` >' >"O 'O V O L T •� T II >T EE C.t .... EE E U U U U ydj a M c L c to c d w E p v d g d m 5 L d> L M d M L m d M L m d M L m d > L A d L d L Y d M L m d M L m d M- L m a - --- d 0 2 C T O d a N c O C N c n C C M N NTC NTC 2 C !TC _ p V U m C0. Q d TC d aN :1 -3 d d LL _Y2 O. O C C C C a > .� N w N N 0 2 d d« � °. _ .__ .-x_ x d E Y) rn u n N y) . 9 N N 2 N N O N N L O N O N N N U) U, N N 0 N N N d > or- .2 C C ° ° Y Y Y C Y° x r1 o 0 v p ;. o a E` m d > a •LL V N N '0 h '0 !A N _ U) N; N N N N « N 6 0 d' dd E.°EE 9O vo E E 1 a v E E 6 >MC >y ' ° d C p C Km3 O C V C V C V C V 0 C V C V O C V N C V C V N C jo --------- - -- •C m M M c O O It E O O O O O O r r E 2 a m Q Q Q o o Q Q Q Q Q Qo o4400 s O N U a o 0 al al al 0 0 al 0 0 0 0 0000ssssEEE ' � w9 wuiw U U V U U U U U U U U U U LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LLuuuuuuuuu� RUN c N N W Nto Q' Ol 6'2 `p C �D 012 d�ya `Od U_ > 0 ' 2 a U).9 N o Z � m 'c E � m E m E ¢'av 1611 B19 6 M N M oD T a 10 (D n i rc M cli (D n 00 O0 h N m N V M M C Y � C R y a s E N M (D � u m O ^ m E Cl) N M 7 N o0 (D n T N _o S N x O o N co N N O a M M N T M M r r co M d U '> O V 00 M T M OD V N r n w r r M r M N y U T m 9 M N M m O -q H to m M C R V V •� e e m v n oo a � nmmtwo a co R N n l0 OMD (MO N n O a M N N N C4 N a a m m x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x y c LL 0 LL N m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O R N O O O N O N O O O O O co O V) O (f) O l0 O N N O O N O 00 O O n (O O n O V O O O M O (O O M O (D M (D O D) V M (D O) N N (O c0 d• n V N n O n V) n n N 6!3 (O O n N 00 M Cl) N O O tD jp (� (D (O ct V fA fA (D (D M N N N (O M N W. 6F} 6H I to W. 69 H-) 69 fA 69 W. 69 Y? fA fA fA d N C o O y N V d an d d L O T 3 � m m d N c ` M C C > 3 w R V O R p N •y d m R p R O w o° V c an d >m o m aai 3 p 3 0 y 3 0 L m Y e 14 O, ` d o C N m N m N m o c E r 3 y c L > L L d N C T O O d d O L N T c ( -1 1 CL a a E p d y c d R o d ` d d R Q o 3 O .° 3 .+ 'a=R ° E c °m a> m o R o v L d a m L (D L 0 d 0 —d > > c y a O O d U` 0. y �. aL.+ •3 p L '3 m O N m O m O K r w Q (V M >, R m T 0 N E R V f0 O. p R d N i y d d y >. CI N« N L R m Y` O O N co E C O () �+ 3 a �. 3 a R a R R a R a R U U U C R Ol. F L L R O y V Va V V C O o C Y V V d O N 0 V N N C O C O A d (, Z L N v Y E d O d R o R O CL CL CL V V U T N • C ` r d d w O V ` D: d C V� 2 d a d m y •o N V '6 v C� R d v C R L d E (U w U E N E N d R d d R d V R N d N N d d d N V y . O E - C a d NR •a > 3— co N> :: R d > R d V R> d (p O D R d R > O j d > 0 V d V V d d O a In d L L•' E d V N Y V R c a YC•- y N CY a E R a E R O O.O.N O y O. m0 m O. D- a 7 o Z0 o 'y m L dp u C du mu y 0.- Eda ` EdE V ccc.3 V V CL y t_ ' C 7 N «C _ C N r _ Ra �. R R R �r fV (M Td me c'cccT cTOC va00Lcoc3ddv cc Emr LL o •N Rp U oo• 3 U - « R U oR •7 p U L o 5 R CL ov j N R D' oaoL N '� a 0 a o 0 0 o 0 j i 0o .3 •j LL d 0 7 C >_ c O•- —m d' 0 `— O R C d oia aE O E E d oY 00 do d a O N i O U) C O N O 0 U) 0 y L 'O 0 O V C N U C V O U C N w O 7 O O 7 7 y N N N C N C O N N d V Z; d d > d O : U V d 01 d d R>` d C (�' R d > P d C R R R d> C d> j d Vi d > O` V d O N d C N > 10 V> m R N d d > d d >> o C m C C C Y> V` N a Z - C cL C`- C- T C O` p U C C E O O O C O m C O N N (a « d d d �m �¢n`¢coicm¢cw ¢ EQcEa¢a¢ •c m c E -2 LL LL LL (? (? x= a a a a a m m m q v v v q o O d N N N N N N N N N N N N N N c� a o 0 0 0 0 0 o a 0 a 0 a a a 0 0 a s a a 0 U U U 22 22 LL LL U. U. LL u. LL N 01 (n U) (n U) 0 N N O (q N O N LL LL LL LL LL LL LL m m _ _ M_ 2_ 2 m m �� a a a a aaaaa as a as � )- r i- i- r- F•• a a a a aaaaa a s a a s c �N ID N [6 N in K d R O Mma` m c c R °mya 41 � Q � U n ° in' E a m 'c m E m= E ¢'aci 1611'g19 E M N N M M to M M -7 i K y to M M M to M t0 M C e C R n � u a i E e ^ M a M a N N M M � (7 R O m E N N m m N N _o o y u 0 C M R N N N N Os y d U O p7 N M N > N M M M d U N R m C R n U co N rr N m M co M 0 7 U c m M N r d C= T (D W aM•• N N N n N N N R d � O a r N N M N t0 N N N n N N � O :p _ CO O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X y C d O LL CL U) m Man 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 m 0 O C. O 0 co 0 Cl) C. (D 0 to 0 D) 0 O 0 N o 0 v O o 0 O 0 ' D) , O) OD to O < N (D M (D lzi M N to M M .p M N to N r tr ct O M a' M to (O N (D N 69 69 VH N fH M V) 69 Vi h fA N fA O 69 (D rri M 64 N V9 (D kA M Hf (D 6S N 69 R L v o v E y c a 3 N N cc d ti d N Obi p O• y d c R d a-. 'D C 7 3 7 r O O C O 'Y p• d V R O Co m O m O R m 0 w W O w N O a ` E CL mL «E « a0i �o m �� rn d m E o c o .y E, N c y d v c E N d u� d v « W c� d« «'3 c� d« «'; c� a c v m o m ;a L E o °a c 3 a R o R a R a rnm y O O1 y (n CL " t CL O d Y > E O O« y O L -O O y L O C y rd-. L co ` W d 7 O O X d Q `.O 7 to X O d •p 7 N X O a d C d .d, N C O E m. L me m rnd -aE =0 =Q yoy d o ° a 5 R N a y O c 'y d TJ N R d E J d •O J> d 'N •O Q E R E °i � A N C p,O E o• R y p•O E Q t0 y R N o Q E N O R C C C R R A y v' E d R d R C X R 3 O C U d S Y 2 x Y •O R Z d •O d y C ` cu m R M R R d C C O C C Q U y L a ` d d N Q S U d S M S N QN V E R X d R 3 R 2 a a m a R E N R R N L fA U w N d« d O y R V R j R O m C O L< O Ol C L 7 d a' y d 3 3 « 07 N N N w } N O ^2 O N d N N N 7 co N X S �... x F C v G R Y a E R a R d m a m r R o �' a o w o c d > — — E 3 5. E d 2 E aka = a m. m> m> w p m « _ « CC 0 m d 0 '� Nap 3 a= o o v ; N« c E o m 0 S D 2 x O o S_O O d c❑ x ''- 2 0 m 2 a N 3 C R o C y C d 'p R .. a U .. p a w R fT y fA p C Y a c 0 y c tT y 7 0 O ID C C M c ac •-° �a 00 -- c p o•• c ° R c °_ c -� N c -� N cM - N c ;;U_ - � c a c. Vl a pe rn W o - 7 o - 7 °_ C> _N L T 7 O 3 U O U A y t d x< X N P') X Ln O X U! wX d N •X Yi C Q O O CD d C y p y d Q d y O y_ C O y d 6f C d O C d 0) C d d` d d d d N 7 X 0 0 O E d 0 y d « R y > d > «> d >« d L d « •C d « t v« d 0 Q C« d O Q« d 0 Q D W d j j > a u d3 �'m cd 'R - 17 - A dar3 drndrnw ddo dd d°m m is - > d` O C R �C C C U R U— R U— R R R R O m d C C C C E t%1 0« R y •O L Y Q` d W Q N d Q N d W Q C= d ft o. C d Q C d R E m a s N rL a Q a •a a' W J w w u1 w K y J 0 Q' U LL O 2' U O K U_ rL N Q Q Q C m 3 C E° ww w LLu. ¢ a a m m m vv Y O L) d (L N 00 N N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 m 0 M 00 m m 0 M 0 z z z z z z zz z z 0 (n U) m (n m 0 x F Qa F F F Q Qa F F Q F Q x x (7 x m x x x �0 x x (D x C7 d O. EL a n. a cL J J J J J J J J 5 J O N N m d N � d � R ` �O �m p m •.- w E U O Z o oV) E N � m C E E rn— E CL o Q U 161 &.� till E tm'1 O N N N O N N N N N M M i K 0o N y CA � V N 0 M 1 0 M V N N N N N N N N N C 0 :se p C R m y d � s E d O O N d/ r N M M N N M N w N N N N N N 7 M 'O C9 R M E n 00 0 N O W M N M h to N C N N N N M M M M Cl) o MO x > 0 _ O M M M N N N N h N A M N � M � CO M M M Cr M M N N N y d U > H N M M M C7 O N O M CO N N N 00 N T N N N N N y U R j� n M M M to M to M 'T M LO N r N M 10 to N C R U V e n O O h O d a m M M M M M C= R T O N N CO O W aV W a0 CD fD CD M r M r M 10 M w 10 h co 00 O N d h M 47 r• fD N M N I� N (O N M N R N t� N t� N CO N ID N 00 ._ ❑ ;p y m x X X X x x x x x X x o m X y c a „ a N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °s��e „��e °ssooe” sssssoosos essseo e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0„ �ge�e� om^ mr. aee�aM »�e O O w tf7 b T N N 7 CO V ,°. N N N (O N N� h CO C; V 'c! N r to w O 00 M N — M H9 QI 61 r fA r fq ER S) EA fH fA C7 O L U) C p O d a d vi > m d _ �° p E 'y0 R m ❑ R 0 R ~ - v m c R o E 5 rn a ❑ R ? DV m y 9 m y U y A w E° o C 3 d d d L d w d y E �- M R d O C C 3 Y d y 00 w E u v u E °c E O [A L `y w w y V N w a= mE m9 7 °p C C `.L O1 — R 3 R 3 d U '' v v j > Eq mEa - V d aE c .S C d C U O O` m V❑ oSEu- y'[ v'I L d C R R CL ❑ O 'O d mi�•e 05 A dE O ¢ - °E tz O .d+ f/I R Q) C CO EogxEm Eeurc'v °o U) E U) 13 R r y O ❑ 'O '6 E d R V w •i. CA d `E9E m__ ACv S`� a g2 q > O = r t ai C C C CA ` V d mom' '�..� _a C y 'p R d R d C d O U U"gm C C C p v O R Q OD U❑ W m O CL N O LL C R C R y y N y y ou__ G o» =_ ..5E E _ aw=mm`_E° c�°=`O Eg - Sv = C C N d d d d de _- m _a �° —C6 mg`5a9 mQ a° E E❑ y d 7 d b R CL CL CL C T2dQ- CL 'L". w °f z° _e o c �E d5°icmY a Ed of A op d d C C C C C' - - -- '' -'�- M d9 y p _ 8 R 'O ❑ U U CL R R R R R _E _d�- = E m° y E w° > e w -- E y = w 0 v v o 0 v -0 v 'p v •6 v •p v •O �qcq °'<<<� <<W aA zd;msa�mo «v'��q'aA m Q a R a d w d w E 0 0 0 Q Q= .e °aa= -aaamaaa_aa v- =E « aaNa Ewa = =z "rcrcoaE °aao�aa •c m 3 m m m o 0 0 " E o a y 0 o O N d' a V V * R m° . a mm a ° O8 °mU O z w w w w w w w w w W a M a a a CL CL CL a c. pppppWp aNmmmNmm c�QQQQQaQQQQ wwwww wmmmm Z U U) U U U N U y U fA U N U N U y U M U y ....... 00000 �� y 0000000 V1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ w z. —Mll ZZ 2 aR, g as Y = z z z z aa z z z QQ z z QQ z m QQ mf......Nm efFgfff£ mmmNNm KKK m J J J J J J J J J J J m0000000�� UUUUUr ��a��a�aad d¢aaaa c 0 .y m d ✓� N m .- �ma` � c c aDi ° a N j y � d �• y E a d d t0 Z O a °UE o — N N m c . a � C 3 3 E m_ E Q a) 0 O N d L f N a C a c d E O E T E E V 16I 1 B-19 E S N O N r M N m a s ip 6 c s Y c c u U' a E D O `m 0 C O G .y > N e d .s d N V' s N m T 1� W ti N N O N p N i b N m M IrMj � O t0 N N N M � m U c m c - ,d M N O N N N m O eO N h N O V) N C N m m N N N N O) N M N W t0 M h a ar Om O N N OI Of m m O IO b O m O m M 1� Ol M M m 1� m N e} of m f6 e'f N N N N m m r O E () r tH Hi Hi 1U M to ID tR I� to V' - O N� 10 - m N � 1 O) Ol m N M O tD [7 M r M M M O 3 .2' �-' Q _ O m N N N O N O O M O N tp CO M r N N 1� N O N M M m M M N VJ N M V m r N tom. R V IIf n a O N r O N O m m m M O] m N N m O M m O r N N N lD m N m m N a` a` m M h IR O O O m V IO h O m A O N O M l m M M N 10 O ?� et M Ol Ol m m m N N N Cl ID 44 m N M N m O N N N r O N n A N Lq O M N N m tq r N N N 19 N IA � � tR M W U! fR m m IA M M IA N fA M N N O M fA N � m L` m m m m m Y Y m a O c E O U ._ m u .� m v O O d m D u m u U m m u 0. LL m a o« U d L d > E v a a a m y o as a N a C7 > C7 a ?! m Ul p= O u a0 F Y Y m L m _m O E O E L o d a a w= Vl Y m N Y m N Y m LL C d C T Vl m Y i0 N Y N D D Y N Y m Y m Y m O D n D C 3 0 iJ O t E >N u O y O U m O U U ` 0 N N 0 ` E C N O O U d m T I? d T d d d 2 m OI N O O O O > « Y 6 d O o o O O m d o O Ol N d O m ; Ul O ul o C 0 O. 0 ++ W > D D T O 3 a n o 6 0 6 o p` .E m 2 6 c o 6 0 m `-' n 6 o 6 6 o o L m n o 6 o v Y m a t m 3 d Y fL D q$ a n D = 0 g m a a a D a a s n a a m O p9 E D D D � L «; A D D D d D d D D D d N m jp T C m „moo„ N c c E •0 o rn a c c O c m e m m 0 N X N k O' d > m �+ E m N A X lull X Ill m T N ._ X O N d x O D d D N x VI X ` O 0 O VI VI T o a N ... N O. OI x d d d Vl E y E O` O. "' N L d O' d O• an ` >' d LL' d LL' Q d d N N d D O d m m L cd m m •p ry L m Q « H O D D D D D D .;C 0 O m`= Vl d Id/I U m m m N> a L t ... C .�„ K 6 6 C C 0 E E E o. m r a E E y° E _ E —= C C E E d D N N °° o « a ° .. 3 « c m C C C m m C'1 Z n d Al D X C D T L m U D C D V C O U U D C D C d" Vl L L L m D) n0-. N N N V m m m m d d 6 C 0 d In d i d d O m a D d C m D d C C m m D d D d 6 Y O m > ; 0 0 C C u j V C q m .. C tr C Ol C Ol m u d D C y 0 Vl C m 2 C m 6 n O m C O1 `• C H Ol 'y •�• •I- y yl C Ol C OI y C L N i0 0• m m Ta m d p 0• jp E m en d N H p LL t E O O N d N d d d V1 Ill m m d d O1 C ` OI d d d d n6 0 t E o o >�' m Ev d y j di d ._ y A L v d ^Dlv a d o. a y d > O L •y m 0' E ._ m t p L L m n d D Z U Q: O L ._ N L p N a U y m L N; d •p L i N D D d L> N Ln O p. U m n o. d d D` c — — 3 Ol C m O C 0 C C W _ N C'f C fV 'C p s N d C C •` m so C C m m .` C p _ C « m m? u a O N. m T l7 m m y N L; d y C .U.. E C C O O A C 0 C "• « o A C ". O T Y p> 6 O m .r an T O• _ d ••- D T 'a o d d a a :- d T d w V T O 6 Q D. > f O O c E C E q d m U `a c d a c c i c p d m o o T— g o d o c a c o a; d E u E C y o E o c a E« 3 E E cm c mc cc '� w LL d v E E E E c LL :: °' 6 d d m c O Vl Vl N d m d EA O O' C N N Y O Vl df J •VI D «« J J N d DUI N Vl m E C �• T O• < ii C m O u m O o o.6 O C O T C O C ._ m >> r >> d O C Zr�` C m d C m m C'- m m C O C U d O n d o O O m d > o m o d T u U O O N ILO E E m ip E N U v E U d_ U° . > U 0 >> 0 0 U d, U O d C N u 0 >> d d Y O d 'm" m -- .m-. •O d N a « « O n « y « 'O y 'O O Ij n > E E E y v N N = >i m a c m m c m > c m u. > c m _ a Q Q Q E Q > Q c m m> c m .: E Q w> c m d m K c p d d 0' 2' x c❑ m> c m m o c 0. Q E _ Q Q H Q Q E 0: m R N O N M R N N N 'a aR a? p o c) iN w N o p 61-514 g am m 4 N p co 4 O Q 19 01010 O p N O p N N O G N N O p N 0 0 101010 N G N O p a a V N a p N A N a p p a W W W W W W 2 2 2 U v U v v U � � IL v a v o. v o_ a M v u u w w u. N N N N N !q y LL u. N N LL N LL N N ILL u. N w 0 0 N W N N m 0 N N N LL LL LL LL LL S S S 2 S M S LL LL S S LL m LL m m LL LL `.L p Z p = Z F- 2 2 F- F- 0 2 Z H = F- a a p Z Z Z �� a0¢.aa aaa� as aQ.� CL (L 0.(L iL 0. m g35 c 0 m l6 m N N O � N O M m 0 O C N � O _ O aci 0 m m tO U O � � a O � N � y J � E m E aJa0 0 0 m L N a c m c m E m O E T .0 3 E E 0 U 16 1W 61y EQ! n M N M d M N M f0 M T N A N N N A N M tD N O M M cD N N d d Of M 3 K A d O N O d N f0 IO t0 O� M N M O A y c rni Y c w A c0 A O) T A t° d O N N N lD O N a N N M N M N N N M M M N d M d R M O d a ^= M M N N M M M M d E 9 O M M N N r 0 m u O O N OO t0 N A O1 A (a O1 O O d O .N .> n ❑ � N N d M m A eC N Of O. O Of �O A Nm C N M N M M N N M M N M d r M M U ° m _ N ° t0 O� op OD A M d d O N O A N A T w m ° N M N M N r M d M M N d d M C m c 0 M M r r M M N M m IL N" r t0 r t0 r tD r r o_ Op r N [7 C1 N A N N O> vi m 0i N N O� r O r v of Ol N M co A N N tp a �p tT M N M O �D fR d t0 19 N N tD fD M -c N f0 A IR A h� W fA o� eR N OJ M V ".J W m !9 � 00 of 01 O M N N O N M M tD t0 W O CO N m N N A A m O O N O N N N m M A O N A N N N N N N N N N M M M M O O N O O fD O O {D O O O> O O O O C7 O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 d OD 0 0 0 d N O O O O C r O O O O O r d O O 0 0 R. OI W O O 0 O O N O O N O O O O Ca M O O) O 1 07 A O O O A N W N A t0 O N M O m tD N N M tC d t0 d M M M 10 10 M Of (D N d d e0 O fR N N [O t0 M {O N t0 M N d N r N N N d IR {R t0 tD M Ot N d N d N W r d d f9 IR M A d M N N N d M IA 1A fA tR df fR (R fR lA fR /A /H M 19 69 fR fR fR M � • W m N M N OI N > _ > _ O C C C m L L c m m C m C d W m p O U a s L Ol L T L T « N L N V d 7 C d > O - L A m N > N 10 d N d m m C m m m tC0 1. N d d Q Q C _N J J J C C C N ._ Y U A N d m m A 10 o m d m m m IJiI m V O V u N> A m> C O O m J 'O O O O O 6 m C a'= .N J N Y fn y .=.r Y % a- ..°.. W w � « N N O m A A C❑ C E❑ o r❑ N O O N 6 O .' r C K U31 y 1- W J r A N v N J A m m C J 9 C 9 J .r m C Ji 0 ❑ Y O1 « o C O• C m 'O C 'O p O O U U E L O N O O m x m m J C d d 0 U m D � •C d C V Lmz i� J LL xE � K J y x— d m v —° ` .` O. a;E c ° u 10 —° J Y E m E E o N N aaJ m rn�m J rnaE .c? V wy:`5 m ,°, O` Oinm N N �°, E UN 'Y > w o 00 N m J m mE m J m mE u m a Em 6 0 Eo.Ed O. N _L m U_ 1°.c o C m L 0 o c om O,a_ c m y'_ a 'x •� ay 9 O nam x Ap�c m❑ me mx V= m m5E_ a; m C v E m m C C `« d E m « a m E m mm '•� •O o x t0 Mn m 'x x m 'm x y N •o O m m .+ N m y .�.� O m U C o N o d y v N N o m O V m o 4 U C u N d •" -- N N o a +J+ u m :: ;; c 3 N 4 L : L N« �^ mu O `" d m m 0. •c m u m m m `u O C y > 'O A 'x 'x m m rn rm N V N c V c B In c m V y0 o W y o y 3 y; OC c ? C N o J Opl x J> m Oa m '_ N m. c a y Y Y . m e m m> m 'Ij �.. 'm �.. 'a m a v m❑ , ° —o !' x O m a m m E m 9 m m` c m 'a > N E o v °p.°_'�rn m A S m E E o ;! yu « E E a; 'q mEm ma E J mm m9 my > m� m mfg L. > m m > �N (n '^ m m a- m m i0 a$ O .o E_ i0 d a s m N m o m N a 0 N ° E 0 ;_ m K "- a .L. L~ c m o. E° m N 0« C O_ Y❑ S m S _❑ .. x a C C❑ c E E S N ❑ 0❑ x a O S a U N s v .O U K C a p m= °S r' C7 a i d `p ri 2 n I c c m C s c c v c y m c N m T c o U❑ zo N o o o E c LLl T C >, c o o c ✓. •'^ o ._ c _ ._ m N y m m c rn m °>> C C ,.. ._ _° y _ m A° U m u U_ c p J o x p 'R 25 'x' c= 0 0 'x ° m y 0. 'x E m m 'x E m n O O m u m' j� m o o m 0 , 0 0 0 0 '; O C y a m N 0 n N m U N y N a C .x c N N m m N T y N y N° c y N N N m« > A y y N v m a a A m rL >> m o. v m v m > m- > u m v m m E m m m m x E L m m OI m C m C z> O O C C m° m Y❑ -_> tV i0 O A C w> q U •� C .q O O U U O N N N m E pup � ry.2 C {mj u u W > o C C C V— C— C C « C' «« a a o a« a •°- °M2 m a o a= a? w E'. v a vJ a; v« a; y m$ v m y Em°K�K QKofflKrA�N 6KEo QQQQ- a= a°ua5'a <55a U Q Q Q LL ti m m m C7 C7 ❑❑ m U U U U❑ 2 2 IL LL LL 0❑❑ A ❑ M ❑ M ❑ M ❑ N N ❑ ❑ M ❑ M O M ❑ ❑ ❑ d d C, ❑ d M O ❑ M ❑ a O M d ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O N N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ M ❑ z O 1= W W W W go a 0 O U' U' t�c�UUUZ 0. 0. a a a a (7 0 0 a 0 a U UU U' Nz ~ z ~ z ~ 2 2 z z f z ~ LL LL❑❑❑ F- zzzU��?<3� F ~ ~❑ LL LL LL LL LL~ Lr X x x M x x x z z z x x x x ILLL Q a Q Q LL Q 2 S x U' fJ 2 Q Q 2 2 2 2 (7 C7 U Q 5 R K 0: K g Q Q� g O F- 1 J J a s J J J F- 1- J J J J 1- 1- 1- h , a o. F- H J ResnickL From: Keith Daflas [keithdallas @comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 9:18 AM To: ResnickL Subject: Summary of CIP rankings Attachments: CIP rankings 8- 2- 10.doc; ATT00001..txt _ a, I have developed the attached summary of the CIP rankings as they stood the other day. I did it because I was having trouble interpreting what some of the descriptions meant. My new one tries to use language that is easier to understand. Would you send this out to the PBSD members and bring lots of copies to the meeting. Your massaging of the results may adjust the rankings slightly, but probably not whether we think an item high versus low priority. I thought we could use this along with the more complete sheets as discussion items at our Budget Committee meeting tomorrow. Keith 1 of 1 8/4/2010 9:21 AM by LR bA � O � N O UO a� r6l 919 r-i O O kn M to M Q1 M O1 M 01 O 00 O O -- .� p O Q1 v� C V 00 00 \O O 01 00 Lr O O— t- 00 NO O kn N 69 00 O M 00 O1 cq d� Ln Lr n I in IO [� d 0 y p 0 O - 0 O 0 O O d O O O M O O O N O O O N O 00 CC 00 b9 O DD d 00 1 ti l� 00 M Vi p1 O d O 01 a1 00 \O I'D N 1146 00 00 p Lf) - M N N N mcl M N 01 %10 N l— 110 O i, ^ �' "o Cr) O d �j U -+ O Y 71 Ln Q cd V .> CA Q Cd 6's A o 4 Q Q U �'0 O a 71 61 `8P �Q o U C7� to zs C7 o o a, � Q `. Q Q d th Cd °� o �� '� ��° �'� o�aa� uc� A1G� W °� aO te „o C,3 PL, O C7 a ' r 0 ° n a Q I o I I F4 'Q � ~ aj 4 ¢ , � cn A Q. o .I cd s oo •" N ai Cd cd cd N cd U cd cd cn 6 'n°'n° � 33 w v O Y Y N~ cn w O ° ° ° O � bn Q W O O o U '~ N M W- N �M� -- 1 l� O N M 00 O M O ^. N i N Q Q N Q N Q (� Q N N N N N N N H V U U U to U d 72 m Cd cd r-i bA 0 a T 0 0 N N Ell 1611 B19 N �0 0 '—' M t� �n •--� N O� N d' N d= m [� 00 d 00 CUd 6�3 -+ •--i N M M M M d' d' V7 V't O U O 0 p O O O O p O O 0 0 0 O O p O O y p O 0 O O O V) O W) O m O O O C1 O Ln O O 1�0 O 110 p� O 00 O O v N 00 N [� O Ln N N N N M ao N M M N NMN O '-+ l� N -- -- N r- O kn p N O cd U N N N 00 N 00 U x �°'• O A °' Q U PG � t7 o o :3 p-' O O O O O rA -. v on O Al 0 8e ° w'cd o i (� v Q +° +; o Q 4-4 ° x �n o � 40. .. �x�� . o �; ,- p , d a O Cd p En °� s . 0.3 +O t-r) '.� °, Z'3 cn a En o ¢ o `� p 3+ O 3 3 > v i x v •d -d o ai ai cd -d b Q. o p -d a a w7c d _O Cn � w � � d�� cn �4C/5 an It C14 QUP�GU w d M N ^�1 c� rn cd a3 cn ti O^cn CJ CIO cd N bQ O �o N o go 16 14. B19 M OO M M D\ O \p O lD N V) rr U ON1 O�� N W) C O O tt V'� Vl O' t \O --� ci ci OO 00 OO OO 4\ O U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O d' O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 01 M O O O V'1 O O O O N O - O .- �� O V) V'1 '� e \O t M M Ln M \D cr N OO N OO V7 kn V] M \p M � N , \O l0 (01) O" It M d' [M � N ---� V V) n N N d i. N tU. H i. U � N � bA 3 \o A C7 C to \ 'O W -6 .r, O 4 a o� N > N > O U .oAv� �, cd QQ marl Q ; ,a w o ° ° a to W v 0 M O y U' O U cd 'Z7 O p O O O O^ s 3 � o x aa3 bA. i i �a y Cd O 'EI qtj ".W 00 U � � O .2 a CL C13 V y N cd CL a� U � ° C,3 'n r� v) v) ri vX CA C U Cl) C/) V) bA ,ate, � �WC�a �N �C7 r' U Agpa A U vUUU r•+ N M W q xx � w -- N ti o0 — ICI b0 U N b4 cn E� M ResnickL August 4, 2010 - 9 a From: Sent: lukasz_k Monday, July 26, 2010 4:30 PM Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Update on Tree Trimming for Lighting To: Subject: Attachments: McCaughtryMary; ResnickL August PBSD Meeting Street Light Obstructions.xlsx Page 1 of 4 04 hisa, 1 6 1 1 919 Please add to power point. The map I reference is Proposed Roadway Lighting Diagram in the Wilson Miller Report. If you can't put in the agenda disregard the reference to the map in the text below. Street Light Obstruction Recommendations After review of the street lighting obstructions a list was made with the recommended modification which closely follow the recommendations of Wilson Miller. This list is included in the agenda package along with a map identifying the pole locations. Below is the total costs for the recommended modifications that include either pole relocation or tree /palm removal. An addition 42 lights had further pruning performed to enhance lighting effectiveness. .. -Poles Relocated $ 27,300 45 - Trees/Palms Removed $ 7,350 $34,650 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. 1 of 1 7/27/2010 8:18 AM by LR Street Light Obstructions - Tree /palm Removal Fixture Number Obstruction Recommended Action August 4, 2010 - 9 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Update on Tree Trimming for Lighting Page 2 of 4 1611 81 102 103 2 -Sable Palms Remove 104 105 2 -Sable Palms Remove 108 109 1 - Sable Palm Remove 114 115 1- Sable Palm Remove 118 119 2 - Sable Palms Remove 122 123 1 - Sable Palm Remove 134 135 1- Sable Palm Remove 136 137 2 - Sable Palms Remove 138 139 Oak Canopy Remove 144 145 1- Sable Palm Remove 146 147 1 -Sable Palm Remove 156 157 2 -Sable Palms Remove 158 159 1- Sable Palm Remove 162 163 2 - Sable Palms Remove 164 165 1 -Sable Palm Remove 192 193 2 - Sables Remove 198 199 1 -Sable Palm Remove 206 207 2 - Sable Palms Remove 208 209 2 - Sable Palms Remove 212 213 2 - Sable Palms Remove 214 215 1- Sable Pam Remove 218 219 1- Sable Remove 232 233 Sable Palm, Tababu Remove 3 Sable, Reloc PI 260 261 1 - Sable Palm Remove 612 613 1- Sable Palm Remove 614 615 1 - Sable Palm Remove 622 623 2 - Sable Palms Remove 628 629 1 - Sable Palm Remove 636 637 1 - Sable Palm Remove 700 701 1 - Sable Palm Remove 730 731 1 - Sable Palm Remove 9001 901 1 -Sable Palm Remove August 4, 2010 - 9 a pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Update on Tree Trimming for Lighting Page 3 of 4 Street Light Obstruction - Pole Relocation Fixture Number Obstruction Recommended Action 152 153 Oak Canopy Move Pole 166 167 Oak Canopy Move Pole 196 197 Sables Relocate Pole to S. Med 216 217 Oak Canopy Relocate Pole 30' South 224 225 Oak Canopy Relocate Pole 30' N 232 233 Sable Palm, Tababu Remove 3 Sable, Reloc .254 255 Oak Canopy Reloca. Pole 10'W, Prune 704 Oak Relocate Pole Across St 706 Oak Relocate Pole 20' N 720 721 Sables Relocate Pole 10'S 722 723 Sables Relocate Pole 20' N 830 Oak Relocate Pole Across St 1611 819 1611 C. e¢ms[ on �y z0 a fb 9 O S ,coy afJ io 8 .O =t1 -� - - e :a Os DQOQO� rcuuv uar svo G: �' Y b .G� :U �L rZ = S-3 p 8 a.:.F xr2 jj,�_ 2 � 4 0,0 � cuu nwc on - 1?C Ba Y� Imo; a` -_ Q XLS 8$ � tv s x .Oa A sB °s �r o® O1 ° n C A nNN. A 3 M N o p O c 1 O e n d a m i O a a� H 6/1 H U .O L a�^^ BFI .O t Q c O T M� W i. m U aI 1A I d d d d N d d d d d d m d = d v W W 01 N o f EEp E E E E Ep E E E E n n E a o 0 o Q U U v 888 U p U d p U U U pE U Q U pE U y 1O > 'o a x v c •c v d i a .ma w a O E Y m ;! o c� N s h v o ., a d c u G m -O Yvv'a�i d a « u c n� E j o E .aL «Y « `a « c�`T L L M D d c N a—O+ C E E c u m a c a .Q O E -x 3>m a J N n o o a. a a N m° Y m °p A d h u a i = Z� w m° « ro > °d•B Eu dv „ 0 E a. N ° ° c >° r m c m o^ u' m��0 .E Emv` m � u m y L C O M O S' u u E L= d J Y Q h ° au 10 E v m 3v daa m« E c v u E o « o ° E H m s Ju v A. 0h E d oY m a-1 Y A U E N d o > 0 Q d �• m > o ^ N ' J G E m> N d n 6 W E a d .,.+ o E m ry y« C d E : 1! T 6> > m O u C c A 2 a E U u m n C 5 c x°'nd m N m m z aamd a r >, $ E c c A« L C. a m n. � °-' 0 ° am « = E a t; v> « o . a d P u E c w c E v u x d M Ec w 0 o U . c = 8E tdm a >2 H V S a U c N o o ° 'm m N > `N w 3 S E ti C = d m L9 J n — v o ° m u N E d c L 0 m v • . c N c o E u ^N a >' d m 0 L9 a ° Z t E w " 0 n o E v N � o aw •�.i` Nu u 3 Z n > W '.mo po V J w ` N m d n Nd ` c N L an E m O m '" N Y a L n L o 'm E d « m d �m 0° , ,> m c `d�a "�-i �? oLLO ry d �` r v '>° m 3 Q u as d a n o u +' ° v s $ N m a m c i o °1 u .°� r ti a . LL •q c y m 3 d? $ y =' 3 m q a v o m N .c = o c A c a O. o « y �� N i ` E� u 00 v i N m u v o o E m� w m LL c a o° o n a E c t '� o N m m m 'O o o a c E y E °' m Z a d 0— L W C N t q N O i+ N y U v L C E ° N a b p ` d C N C w 0 N s v O O v3 E m J '° O r lL L ut !^ >' 3 L d m d a m d d d d X a oN' `a 'c d —U a �l 0 9 N M C H- v d v a a o a m> E d O\ w G D 0. a s u °. 'a - m C u z o° h U M o c .N+ o F H y Y J c u o «'" x> o m w 3 u -0 a r. ed d o E E 'S o a; ry p j o °� m E E G d c7 a n a. o c o {: 0 0 a' L Q a> d m n >. ¢ c u m v N— c a N d ^' °- $ 'c « s— m n a L N° c 7 M d 0 o d J c « V u E o ,m`_ C` n d G a m n N J a U m> .. L— y m o v t• p y o 3 LL O \ a N 3_ E N_ N u cod Ern „ J 0` '+ d "O Q 0 a L`— x 3 d� ~ 0 E « c y `u ' cm ° ` n y y E E v oc E s o m: n j g c u m „ a n a w a t � a C Z n 'M o m N J N G N „O m O d O n O.°�v 0' N m 0 \\ O Z p 00 C Y °�-i O a N °'a�w Z 6 6 2 z a= in o Y o vL°im' „m um 2i ��r m u-, z m u z s s E v ma 3 d n a N Z Y Y Y Y Y Z o Y ^L Z Z Z Z Z Z y a Z E Q1 O L O m G `d O pd a o > 0 c � s U - E w M y p N NUJ' N O m �i w O C a L VI d •) m 0 d c > 3 m m J u W n.2 N ll m m ob {j w = d G o C d m m u m= o v u W V 'o C L m L C d J O G C 6 j E O O 5 •u d N « c ” y u L a J ^ m y u° c W E O E! 3 L m o m w 10 13 ° :°z y o r o E — •'° 'a G " E a i o w E u Y m c A 0 c m ~ 6 S U 4K W 'c� CJ Oa F- o+ n n n n m o r r 0 0 o m 0 o n 0 1 B19 C� C a H N N O O n n 'O •°mi S C 16I 1 819 *1 PBSD Meeting 08/04/10 Comments submitted by Linda Roth The PBS &J Report is 79 pages long, excluding 5 pages of Executive Summary, and 2 pages of References. Of which 26 pages (p.p. 10 -36) is on Water Quality Review and Analysis, and 40 pages (p.p. 37 -77) is on Hydrographic Data Collection and Analysis which pertains to water circulation and flushing. It appears that CZM again directs the peer review to focus on the Water Quality portion of the PBS &J Report, and marginalize the Hydrographic Data portion. It is the Hydrographic Data Collection and Analysis that is being used in the proposed CP &E Circulation/Flushing Model Program. I think it is very important that PBSD's Peer Review Scope of Work clearly gives equal focus on Water Quality, and Hydrographic Data Collection and Analysis, if not more on the latter. Under Consideration, I would like to suggest that the second paragraph be deleted for the following reasons: 1. The paragraph emphasizes the importance of the Water Quality portion of the PBS &J Report, and marginalizes the Hydrographic Data portion. This directs the reviewer to focus on the Water Quality portion of the Report. 2. The language "but also expertise with respect to the proactive development of our specific water quality standards for the Clam Bay estuary system, and the establishment of our multi -year estuary management prog am that will address the critical water quality issues as opposed to having FDEP establish solutions." First of all, this is not part of the PBS &J Report. It is not the reviewers' responsibility to consider these matters. Second, this language favors experts associated with estuary management programs named by Coastal Zone management. As Kathy Worley pointed out, these estuary programs are good at overall management of an estuary, but as far as expertise is concerned, they subcontract most of their scientific work to consultants. This language eliminates many experts who work in universities, and research institutes whose experience in estuary management is somewhat limited because they are scientists not managers. Under Evaluation and Selection rp ocess at the bottom of page 4 of 9, in # 1, the last sentence should add the word modeling/ in front of hydrology. If possible, please add Dr. Robert S. Young to PBSD's list of recommended reviewers. Contact information for Dr. Young is attached. Thank you for your consideration. Western Carolina University - Robert S. Young 1611 y 919-f2 estern Search arolina A to Z Index I Site Map I My cat I Blackboard/WebCat Contact WCU About WCU Admissions Academics L"sbrary Student Life Athletics dews Events Giving to WCU RELATED LINKS Program for the Study Home > Academics > Departments, Schools & Colleges > College of Arts and Sciences > College of Arts and Sciences Departments > Geosciences & of Developed Natural Resources Department> GNR Faculty & Staff> Robert S. Young Shorelines Robert S. Young Department of Geosciences and Natural Resources Professor, Geology; Director, Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines Phone: 828 -227 -3822 Email: ryoung @email.wcu.edu Office Address: Belk 294 Website: ham_ /// Rsds.wcu.edu Areas of Interest: • Coastal processes and coastal management • Hurricanes • Wetlands • Environmental restoration • Holocene landscape evolution in the southern Appalachians Courses: • Oceanography • Wetlands • Coastal Science Education: • Ph.D. Geology, Duke, 1995 • M.S. Quatemary Studies. Universitv of Maine. 1990 http: / /www.wcu.edu /9637.asp 8/4/2010 Western Carolina University - Robert S. Young Page 2 of 2 1611 B19 • B.S. Geology, College of William and Mary, 1987 Recent Publications & Presentations: Young, R.S. and Conkle, L.J. (in Press). A new report on the antiquity of Southern Appalachian heath balds. Geology. Young, R.S. (2007). The importance of carbon loss through wetland erosion in the Albemarle- Pamlico - Currituck Sound system, North Carolina. Southeastern Geology, 45:2:51 -58 Bush, D.M., Neal, W.J., and Young, R.S. (2004). After the Storms: Geologists look at coastal zone building. Architectural Record, 11/2004:65-66- CC pyright 2010 by Western Carolina University Cullowhee. NC 28723 _Contact WCU Maintained by the Office of Web Services Directions Campus Map Emeng mcMnformation Text -Only http: / /www.wcu.edu /9637.asp 8/4/2010 August 4, 2010 - 3 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Approval of July 7, 2010 Regular Session Minutes Page 1 of 5 ;+♦- , PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MEI�I6M�N ES"" W 119 EDNESDAY, JULY 7, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in regular session Wednesday, July 7, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, located at 8960 Hammock Oak Drive with the following members present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Geoffrey S. Gibson Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman John Iaizzo John P. Chandler absent Michael Levy Tom Cravens Theodore Raia, Jr. absent Johan Domenie John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill Mary McCaughtry Kyle Lukasz Lisa Resnick AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Approval 3. Collier County Sheriff's Request for Funds to Purchase Two Jet Skis for Emergency Response in Clam Bay (add on) 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. May 26, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Workshop b. June 2, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5. Audience Participation 6. Administrator's Report a. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Update b. Governance Update c. Monthly Financial Report 7. Chairman's Report a. Peer Review of PBS &J Report Update b. Community Improvement Plan Priorities c. Management Contract Review d. Announcements 8. Community Issues 9. Committee Reports and /or Requests 10. Old Business 11. New Business a. Vegetation Overgrowth (T. Cravens add on) 12. Miscellaneous Correspondence a. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet 13. Audience Comments 14. Adjourn ROLL CALL With the exception of Mr. Baron, Mr. Chandler, and Dr. Raia, all Board members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL Chairman Dallas added agenda item three to allow the Collier County Sheriff's office to request funding to purchase two jet skis for emergency response in Clam Bay; and he would include discussing suggestions distributed by Mr. Cravens for the Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work when they discuss the Chairman's Report, Peer Review of PBS &J update. Mr. Cravens added discussion of vegetation overgrowth along Pelican Bay Boulevard that is obscuring existing street lighting, and overgrowth along the west side of the berm under new business. August 4, 2010 - 3 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Approval of Juty 7, 2010 Regular Session Minutes Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes page 2 of 5 July 7, 2010 Vice Chairwoman Womble announced that it was Mrs. Cora Obley's birthday. Mr. Cravensin6cl th t t T 19 his birthday, as well as Mr. Coleman Connell's birthday. II ((VV F Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to approve the agenda as amended. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S REQUEST FOR FUNDS TO PURCHASE TWO JET SKIS FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE IN CLAM BAY Sergeant Jake Walker and Corporal Carmine Marceno of the Collier County Sheriff s North Naples Community Policing substation requested $23,000 to purchase two jet skis and trailers to respond to medical calls along the beach, suspicious boaters, and suspicious incidents and people in general to provide efficient patrol and emergency response and rescue services within inaccessible areas of Clam Bay. Law enforcement best management practice asserts that two watercraft should operate in tandem. The Board postponed further discussion until August 4. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Chairman Dallas and Vice Chairwoman Womble noted Scrivener's errors for correction. The title of the May 26 minutes, page 105 should read "workshop" not "regular session." The June 2 meeting minutes, page 8381 should read, "... general fund has approximately..." Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to approve the May 26 and June 2 meeting minutes as amended. The Board voted unanimously in_javor of the motion. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Ms. Marcia Cravens submitted a document with suggestions for the peer review. She said the June 25 governance memorandum is inconsistent with observations made at public meetings. She is concerned and questioned the intent and benefit of Pelican Bay of becoming an independent district if they could lose control over Clam Bay. Mr. Dorrill said he does not believe the County will give up ownership or decision making authority of any conservation areas, including Clam Bay. Regarding the Administrator's contract, Ms. Cravens said that the Board should consider cutting administrative costs because there are less administrative responsibilities in Clam Bay currently. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL UPDATE Mr. Dorrill reported that an application for an emergency permit to close Clam Pass is complete and in a position to be filed with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in the event of a declared emergency where oil or byproducts might pose a threat to the coastline. The application requires Board of County Commission Chairman or his designee's signature, therefore, when an emergency declared, the application would channel through accelerated procedures and submitted. As there is . .. August 4, 2010 - 3 a rt Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Approval of July 7, 2010 Regular Session Minutes Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 5 July 7, 2010 sufficient sand forward of the dune line, sand will be used as the fill material. There was some discussion about how closing Clam Pass would affect the health of the mangroves. Mr. Hall said if the Pass is closed, the health of the mangroves is dependent up the weather. 1 1611 6 GOVERNANCE UPDATE Mr. Dorrill reported that the Pelican Bay Foundation has taken the lead to explore the possibility of Pelican Bay becoming an independent district. They will examine the business points of the deal to define which assets and under what terms and conditions are those assets the independent district should acquire, i.e., roadways, water management facilities, the twelve -acre operations site, and neighborhood parks. Mr. Gibson noted that they should consider it a priority to produce more reclaimed water for the community. To allow proper vetting of the idea of independence, the consensus is that a draft bill could go before the Legislative Delegation during the 2012 Legislative Session at the earliest. Mr. Cravens made motion, second by Mr. Domenie that Pelican Bay Services Division Chairman Dallas is included in the Pelican Bay Foundation's ad -hoc governance committee. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported that the third quarter financials are "looking extremely good." They received a $13,000 reimbursement from the County for selling surplus property. Tree trimming is over budget, however overall they are under budget and he estimates finishing the year under budget by $100,000. Mr. Hansen Said they should itemize the line item "other operating supplies" under "right of way beautification" that is over budget by 50 %. Mr. Lukasz said "other operating supplies" includes miscellaneous supplies and equipment, but that he would review it. Mr. Dorrill added there might be some items there that are misclassified. Mr. Cravens said he sees Services Division vehicles running when not occupied and Mr. Dorrill said to report such incidents to the office to deal with as they occur. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Hansen to accept the June, 2010 monthly financial report as presented The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT PEER REVIEW OF PBS &J REPORT UPDATE Chairman Dallas summarized the current revised peer review scope of work document and proposed evaluation process. Mr. Levy expressed concern that the current document does not clearly state that the goal is to perform a peer review of the PBSU report only, and the geographical definition of Clam Bay is expanded to include Doctor's Pass. The document infers that the Pelican Bay Services Division is working continuously with the County on the Clam Bay Estuary. The peer review should ::VE August 4, 2010 - 3 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Approval of July 7, 2010 Regular Session Minutes Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 5 July 7, 2010 be limited to what was originally proposed and what the Commissioners approved. Mr. Cravens agreed. Consensus was that this Board has already addressed these concerns and they appeared to be back at square one. 16 rfoeig; Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Hansen to accept the Chairman's peer review scope of work as presented. Chairman Dallas called a question on the motion and the Board voted unanimously in opposition of the motion. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenie to amend first paragraph of the peer review scope of work document to read, "During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved an independent peer review of the October, 2009 PBS &J Clam Bay Estuary Data Collection & Analysis anal report. " The Board voted unanimously in favor o the motion. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to amend the second paragraph of the peer review scope of work document by striking, "... or national estuary program. " The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Chairman Dallas reviewed the draft letter to Chairman Sorey of the Coastal Advisory Committee with the Services Division's concerns regarding the Clan Bay Estuary modeling study. Of concern was how the Clam Bay Estuary was defined geographically, as well as an ever - expanding scope. Mr. Gibson said they should address these issues in the letter. Vice Chairwoman Womble suggested they use the Board of County Commissioners' approved language from April 22, 2008 and December 15, 2009. Board members were instructed to return their peer review scope of work suggestions and concerns regarding the Clam Bay Estuary modeling study to Ms. Resnick by July 19 to approve a new draft document at the August 4 meeting, and agenda packets were scheduled to be available July 26. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN PRIORITIES Chairman Dallas reviewed the Community Improvement Plan priorities form. Four members responded. Members challenged the methodology and the Board consensus was to rank all items one through infinity and do not reuse the same number twice. The Board was instructed to complete and return to Ms. Resnick by July 19. The responses would be entered and mean calculated with cumulative dollar amount. MANAGEMENT CONTRACT REVIEW Mr. Gibson made a motion, second by Mr. Iaizzo to increase Mr. Dorrill's minimum compensated hours from six hours to eight hours weekly thereby increasing his compensation by $1,580 per month. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas said members should be mindful of the Sunshine Law. He suggested that if members wish to comment on an email, to send r comments to Ms. Resnick and she would provide to all members at the next public meeting. July 8 at 10:30 a.m. the Budget committee will meet to discuss how to approach prioritizing community improvement plan projects and alternative financing options. The Clam Bay subcommittee meets July 15. The Foundation does not meet in July. •1 August 4, 2010 - 3 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes Approval of July 7, 2010 Regular Session Minutes Page 5 of 5 July 7, 2010 COMMUNITY ISSUES 6 110 ' The Clam Bay channel maintenance permit application is in process. The Army Corp. of Engineers submitted a request for additional information to Mr. Hall that appears to be routine. An update would be provided at the August 4 meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS/REQUESTS No discussion OLD BUSINESS No discussion NEW BUSINESS Mr. Cravens said tree growth is obscuring street lighting on Pelican Bay Boulevard and suggested the Services Division address the issue by trimming or removing trees. Mr. Dorrill said tree removal permits would probably have to be obtained. Mr. Lukasz said the Services Division has pruned trees identified as obscuring street lighting in the Wilson Miller report. He would provide his recommendations with costs at the August 4 meeting. Mr. Cravens said there is overgrown vegetation along the west side of the berm and suggested the Services Division trim. Mr. Hall said they do not need a permit to trim the area because it is part of the maintenance of the water management system and Mr. Lukasz said he would address it. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE No discussion AUDIENCE COMMENTS No discussion ADJOURN Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenie to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Keith J. Dallas, Chairman 8391 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 7/22/2010 9:34:00 AM August 4, 2010 - 3 b Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Approval of July 8, 2010 Budget Committee Minutes Page 1 of 2 nn BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION B1140MIETIG MINI 9 JULY 8, 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 Thursday, July 8 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 John Chandler absent John Iaizzo absent ow Keith J. Dallas Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill Mary McCaughtry Kyle Lukasz Lisa Resnick AGENDA Roll Call Audience Participation Community Improvement Plan Project Priorities Discussion Audience Comments Adjourn ROLL CALL Chairman Levy called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. With the exception of Mr members present and quorum established. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION No discussion COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT PRIORITIES DISCUSSION L 1 Mr. Dallas said once members have ranked Community Improvement Plan projects they should put them in order and calculate the cumulative dollar amount to find out whether they have enough money to fund the projects they desire to complete and look for alternative funding sources. Chairman Levy said they should consider raising the assessment. Mr. Gibson said if raising the assessment is what they decide, then they should do a demonstration project and communicate their plans with residents. Mr. Dorrill said he spoke with Mr. Mark Isackson, Chief Assistant County Manager and they are affiliated with the Florida Government Finance Corporation, a consortium of credit -worthy government entities. They have put together a $60 million Commercial Paper Program that provides them with funding for projects with terms of 25 years at 5% interest and should be available in September. He suggested the Board inform Mr. Leo Ochs, County Manager that the Services Division is interested in utilizing the Commercial Paper Program. Formally, the Services Division would present an executive summary to the Board of County Commissioners with intent to participate in the Commercial Paper Program. In 1101 August 4, 2010 - 3 b " pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Approval of July 8, 2010 Budget committee Minutes Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes page 2 of 2 July 8, 2010 addition, the Services Division should inform the community of the program and explain the rationale of borrowing money versus using available cash to protect and enhance property values. 1611 ! 19 AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Jerry Moffatt said to let the Board members know financing options are available before they rank the projects. He also suggested for uniformity, the Services Division make project decisions that coordinate with decisions made by the Foundation. ADJOURN Mr. Dallas made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to adjourn at 11:10 a.m. and the Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Michael Levy, Chairman 1102 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 7/23/2010 4:02:57 PM Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Accrued Wages Payable Goods Received /inventory Recv'd Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - July 27, 2010 Operating Fund 109 (Unaudited) Assets 1,568,844.70 $ 1,568,844.70 $ 1,568,844.70 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ (11,966.31) (32,548.00) (1,715,639.09) 191,308.70 $ (44,514.31) (1,524,330.39) $ (1,568,844.70) Page 1 of 1 1611819 i 161 1 B19 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - July 27, 2010 Operating Fund 109 (Unaudited) Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carryforward Special Assessment - Water Management Administration Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification Charges for Services Surplus Property Sales Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Water Management Administration (10,000.00) for equipment reserves $ 44,500.00 $ $ 742,500.00 $ 715,828.61 $ (26,671.39) 1,922,500.00 1,853,533.41 (68,966.59) 1,500.00 - (1,500.00) - 13,043.00 13,043.00 40,500.00 11,542.60 (28,957.40) 2,697,000.00 2,593,947.62 (113,052.38) Payroll Expense $ 44,500.00 $ 34,372.83 $ 10,127.17 White Goods 18,300.00 - $ 18,300.00 IT Direct Client Support 4,100.00 4,100.00 - Indirect Cost Reimbursement 117,600.00 117,600.00 - Interdepartmental Payment 16,600.00 16,600.00 - Other Contractural Services 21,300.00 12,851.17 8,448.83 Telephone 4,100.00 2,367.07 1,732.93 Postage 3,000.00 50.95 2,949.05 Rent Buildings and Equipment 13,400.00 12,469.05 930.95 Insurance - General 1,300.00 975.00 325.00 Printing, Binding and Copying 2,300.00 827.50 1,472.50 Clerk's Recording Fees 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 Advertising 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 Other Office and Operating Supplies 4,261.57 2,157.82 2,103.75 Fertilizer /Herb Chemicals (J /E to correct) 3,600.00 2,981.20 (2,981.20) Training and Education 1,100.00 526.30 573.70 Total Water Management Administration Operating 255,861.57 207,878.89 47,982.68 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense 148,600.00 119,144.68 29,455.32 Engineering Fees 12,000.00 2,788.75 9,211.25 Flood Control Water Mgmt. 14,000.00 2,468.00 11,532.00 Flood Control Replanting Program 8,500.00 1,975.00 6,525.00 Interdepartmental Payment 21,100.00 11,891.00 9,209.00 Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 Temporary Labor 42,400.00 34,000.00 8,400.00 Telephone 500.00 325.80 174.20 Postage - 272.00 (272.00) Trash and Garbage 8,300.00 7,308.21 991.79 Electrical Components Maintenance - 1,370.47 (1,370.47) Motor Pool Rental Charge - 47.60 (47.60) Insurance - General 2,600.00 1,950.00 650.00 Insurance - Auto 3,600.00 2,700.00 900.00 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 4,500.00 2,696.47 1,803.53 Fuel and Lubricants 2,000.00 4,237.38 (2,237.38) Tree Triming 27,600.00 20,556.00 7,044.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,900.00 4,181.96 (2,281.96) Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 896.44 (396.44) Page 1 of 3 161 a g 19 Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 64,673.47 33,726.53 Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 1,091.00 409.00 Other Operating Supplies 2,500.00 3,765.61 (1,265.61) Total Water Management Field Operations Operating 403,000.00 288,339.84 114,660.16 Right of Way Beautification Payroll Expense 45,600.00 35,168.40 10,431.60 White Goods 16,900.00 - 16,900.00 IT Direct Client Support 4,200.00 4,200.00 - Other Contractural Services 28,000.00 14,093.67 13,906.33 Telephone 3,900.00 2,228.55 1,671.45 Postage 3,000.00 28.20 2,971.80 Rent Buildings and Equipment 13,800.00 12,820.76 979.24 Insurance - General 500.00 375.00 125.00 Storage Rental - 466.80 (466.80) Printing, Binding and Copying 2,600.00 577.50 2,022.50 Clerk's Recording 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 Advertising 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 Office Supplies General 4,774.26 2,555.42 2,218.84 Training and Education 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating 128,774.26 72,514.30 56,259.96 Right of Way Beautification - Field Payroll Expense 806,700.00 608,697.62 198,002.38 White Goods 3,300.00 - 3,300.00 Flood Control 130,400.00 116,249.64 14,150.36 Pest Control 6,500.00 - 6,500.00 Other Contractural Services 29,500.00 29,900.44 (400.44) Temporary Labor 211,800.00 149,390.68 62,409.32 Travel Professional Development 642.87 (642.87) Telephone 3,800.00 2,359.15 1,440.85 Trash and Garbage 24,900.00 12,168.12 12,731.88 Water and Sewer - - - Electricity 3,400.00 2,048.66 1,351.34 Rent Equipment 8,500.00 3,022.59 5,477.41 Motor Pool Rental Charge 800.00 216.00 584.00 Insurance - General 12,200.00 9,150.00 3,050.00 Insurance - Auto 9,300.00 6,975.00 2,325.00 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 29,400.00 19,660.57 9,739.43 Fuel and Lubricants 47,100.00 25,107.41 21,992.59 Licenses and Permits 800.00 339.78 460.22 Tree Triming 25,000.00 31,095.00 (6,095.00) Clothing and Uniforms 12,000.00 3,462.59 8,537.41 Personal Safety Equipment 3,000.00 1,341.71 1,658.29 Fertilizer and Herbicides 58,500.00 53,200.30 5,299.70 Landscape Maintenance 60,200.00 47,085.20 13,114.80 Sprinkler Maintenance 30,000.00 14,051.24 15,948.76 Painting Supplies 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 Traffic Signs 3,000.00 530.00 2,470.00 Minor Operating Equipment 3,000.00 4,324.14 (1,324.14) Other Operating Supplies 11,500.00 18,179.18 (6,679.18) Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating 1,536,100.00 1,159,197.89 376,902.11 Total Operating Expenditures 2,323,735.83 1,727,930.92 595,804.91 Page 2 of 3 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) 161,:1. B19 1,000.00 430.45 569.55 1,000.00 430.45 569.55 13,200.00 9,602.47 3,597.53 13,200.00 9,602.47 1,000.00 - 3,597.53 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 18,217.34 5,782.66 63,600.00 52,160.34 11,439.66 78,800.00 62,193.26 16,606.74 2,402,535.83 1,790,124.18 612,411.65 294,464.17 803,823.44 509,359.27 (82,500.00) (51,393.89) 31,106.11 (75,200.00) (41,089.82) 34,110.18 (140,000.00) - 140,000.00 (297,700.00) (92,483.71) 205,216.29 (3,235.83) 711,339.73 714,575.56 Page 3 of 3 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - July 27, 2010 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenue (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Assets $ 243,728.22 Liabilities and Fund Balance R (1,265.05) (2,830.20) (314,193.43) 74,560.46 Page 1 of 1 1611 619' 243,728.22 $ 243,728.22 $ (4,095.25 (239,632.97) $ (243,728.22) 1611 , B19 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - July 27, 2010 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Budget Actual Variance 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 and Storage Insurance - General Storage Rental Office Supplies General Other Office and Operating Supplies Total Street Lighting Administration Operating Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense White Goods Travel Professional Development Telephone Electricity Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Other Equipment Repairs Personal Safety Equipment Electrical Contractors R (300.00) 285,700.00 $ 4,600.00 290,000.00 275,688.44 $ 1,589.82 (10,011.56) (3,010.18) 277,278.26 (13,021.74) $ 33,900.00 $ 26,382.03 $ 7,517.97 19,800.00 - $ 19,800.00 4,100.00 4,100.00 - 6,700.00 6,700.00 - 20,800.00 12,851.17 7,948.83 4,100.00 1,618.79 2,481.21 2,000.00 3.40 1,996.60 13,400.00 12,254.16 1,145.84 400.00 300.00 100.00 - 291.75 (291.75) 500.00 1,761.57 (1,261.57) 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 106,700.00 66,262.87 40,437.13 54,000.00 42,853.79 11,146.21 14,500.00 - 14,500.00 2,752.81 (2,752.81) 2,300.00 162.90 2,137.10 44,200.00 25,931.36 18,268.64 800.00 600.00 200.00 1,100.00 825.00 275.00 1,300.00 2,499.92 (1,199.92) 900.00 427.05 472.95 200.00 - 200.00 500.00 - 500.00 7,300.00 - 7,300.00 Page 1 of 2 1611 B19 Light Bulb Ballast 12,400.00 7,365.71 5,034.29 Total Street Lighting Field Operations Operatin 139,500.00 83,418.54 56,081.46 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): 246,200.00 149,681.41 96,518.59 1,000.00 443.49 556.51 1,000.00 443.49 556.51 13,200.00 8,232.00 4,968.00 13,200.00 8,232.00 4,968.00 14,200.00 260,400.00 29,600.00 8,675.49 158,356.90 118,921.36 5,524.51 102,043.10 89,321.36 Tax Collector Fees (8,800.00) (5,529.45) 3,270.55 Property Appraiser Fees (5,800.00) (1,139.90) 4,660.10 Revenue Reserve (15,000.00) - 15,000.00 Total Non - Operating Revenues and Expenditur (29,600.00) (6,669.35) 22,930.65 Net Profit /(Loss) Page 2 of 2 112,252.01 112,252.01 C � Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - July 27, 2010 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 473,195.40 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 473,195.40 $ 473,195.40 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ (522.50) $ (522.50) (392,850.20) (79,300.20) Page 1 of 1 (1,045.00) (472,150.40) $ (473,195.40) 1611 B19 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - July 27, 2010 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 Expenditur Net Profit /(Loss) 1611 "B19 $ 350,900.00 22,900.00 102,400.00 98,528.50 102,400.00 35,000.00 3,147.70 555,700.00 136,676.20 Variance $ (350,900.00) (3,871.50) (67,400.00) 3,147.70 $ 83,100.00 $ 14,038.75 $ 83,500.00 16,224.00 - 22.04 500.00 89.50 2,400.00 - 500.00 - 170,000.00 30,374.29 25,000.00 22,900.00 350,000.00 - 375,000.00 22,900.00 545,000.00 53,274.29 10,700.00 83,401.91 (3,200.00) (1,970.84) (2,100.00) (1,535.04) (5,400.00) - (100700.00) (3,505.88) Page 1 of 1 79,896.03 (419,023.80) 69,061.25 67,276.00 (22.04) 410.50 2,400.00 500.00 139,625.71 2,100.00 350,000.00 352,100.00 491,725.71 72,701.91 1,229.16 564.96 5,400.00 7,194.12 79,896.03 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received Inv. Received Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - July 27, 2010 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets 116 I,qrei� $ 2,002,692.49 Liabilities and Fund Balance Page 1 of 1 452.36 (1,030,261.41) (972,883.44) 2,002,692.49 $ 2,002,692.49 452.36 (2,003,144.85) $ (2,002,692.49) 1611` B19 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - July 27, 2010 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) FY 2010 Budget Actual Variance 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 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, n Net Profit /(Loss) $ 2,029,500.00 55,900.00 19, 800.00 2,105,200.00 $ 175,000.00 $ 1,924,500.00 53,891.26 (2,008.74) 15,245.24 (4,554.76) 69,136.50 25,437.80 $ 155,624.43 237.85 (6,563.50) 149,562.20 1,768,875.57 (237.85) 2,099,500.00 181,300.08 1,918,199.92 $ (902,000.00) $ (902,000.00) $ - (186,400.00) (186,400.00) $ - (1,700.00) (1,078.00) 622.00 (1,100.00) (837.97) 262.03 (2,900.00) - 2,900.00 (1,094,100.00) (1,090,315.97) 3,784.03 (1,088,400.00) (1,202,479.55) (114,079.55) Page 1 of 1 August 4, 2010 - 6 a ResnickL Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize scope of Work for Peer Review of PSM Report From: Keith Dallas [keithdallas @comcast.net] Page I f 0 w Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 2:02 PM To: ResnickL Subject: Peer Review Scope of Work 9 Attachments: Peer Review Draft ES - 7.docx; ATT00001..htm; Peer Review Draft ES - 7- 2.docx; ATT00002..htm; concerns on water circulation modeling 2.doc; ATT00003..htm; concern on water circulation modeling 2- 2.doc; ATT00004..htm Lisa, would you see that my comments below be passed on to the PBSD Board as part of the Agenda package for the August 4th Regular PBSD meeting, along with the revised draft language. Attached are revised drafts of the "Peer Review Scope of Work" and the letter "Concerns about Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study ". One set are the finished drafts, while the other set shows additions in red, and deletions with a line drawn through them. I have tried to take as many of the comments into account as is physically possible, rewording some of the language where necessary for readability. Besides the revised drafts, please include as background the following comments received from the following individuals: * John Chandler 7/12/10 * Tom Cravens 7/7/10 * John Domenie 7/15/10 * Mike Levy 7/16/10 * Ted Raia 7/19/10 I thank everyone for their input. The objective at the August 4th meeting is to agree on final language for the two drafts. As can be seen from the July 8th email from Gary McAlpin to the Clam Bay Subcommittee etc. (Lisa, please attach to this package), our inability to finalize these documents on the 4th would probably mean the death of this peer review attempt. I feel that would be very unfortunate. Although our work on Peer Review could be moot if the Foundation can strike a general agreement on Clam Bay with the County, that agreement at best will not be finalized for some time, and is not guaranteed to happen. In the absence of such an agreement, I feel it is prudent to finalize the Peer Review Scope of Work to keep pressure on the County. A final point. Please pay attention specifically to Mike Levy's comments. He has taken the approach that we have not agreed to be involved in future studies and therefore should not be discussing the water circulation model in our scope of work or in my proposed letter. I did not take those comments into account in my draft, feeling that our discussions at our June 2nd meeting (see page 8384) indicated that the PBSD was willing to discuss future studies in a very vague, limited manner. The language of the first draft of my letter is taken primarily from those minutes. I would like the Board to decide if they agree with my approach and then finalize our language on August 4th. Keith 1 of 1 712712010 8:46 AM by LR August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular finalize scope of Work for Peer Review of PBS&/ RepW Page 2 of 20 Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work 16 1 a. March 15, 2010 March 19, 2010 — Rev. 1 June 25, 2010 — Rev. 2 June 30, 2010 — Rev. 3 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 4 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 5 July 1, 2010— Rev. 6 July 23, 2010 — Rev. 7 Background During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved an independent peer review of the October 2009 PBS &J report and the work required to complete the development of a comprehensive management plan for the Clam Bay Estuary. Specifically, the BCC authorized that a recognized expert perform an independent review of the Final October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report completed by PBS &J. To complete this analysis, a thorough review of all available historical data including the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) historical water quality data is required. This expert, jointly selected by PBSD and Coastal Zone Management (CZM), will be from an academic, university, or research institute and not directly involved with any consulting firm. Additionally, this individual will be independent without any material relationship with the PBSD, the Pelican Bay Foundation or Collier County government. The review of the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis Report is proposed to be conducted at the beginning of the development of the water flushing /circulation model. 11 is also recommended that the cost of this effort be split between the PBSD and CZM. The current financial commitment from the PBSD is only for the PBS &J report evaluation. After the peer review of the Final PBS &J report is completed and distributed, the PBSD will consider participating in the peer review of other studies or reports that includes the Clam Bay NRPA. Consideration A thorough review of the PBS &J report should involve a number of critical sciences. Among others, these disciplines would involve water quality, marine biology, modeling /hydrology, geology, and natural estuary/ecosystems. The water quality expertise that is required for the PBS &J report is not just the review and analysis to state standards but also expertise with respect to the proactive development of our specific water quality standards for the Clam Bay estuary system and the establishment of our own multi -year estuary management program that will address critical water quality issues as opposed to having FDEP establish solutions. While other skill sets are important, the vast majority of the reviewer expertise needs to be focused in these discipline areas. ■ August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Work for peer Review of PaM Report Page 3 of 20 Activities to be performed during this Peer Review 16 B 9 1. Review, analysis and critique of the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report dated October 2009 performed by PBS &J to include: • Analysis of all available historical data including the Services Division's historical data /information. Accuracy and sufficiency of the data collection efforts undertaken in the development of the PBS &J Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report given the fragile nature of the Clam Bay NRPA, the contracting constraints and ability to augment data with future collection. Accuracy of methodologies used in the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report performed by PBS &J. Appropriateness of findings, conclusions, recommendations, and summary of the report. Evaluation of Proposals Already pre- identified candidates by the PBSD and CMZ/CAC will be solicited to submit credentials and proposals to perform a Peer Review of the PBS &J Data Collection and Analysis report. The Collier County purchasing department would confirm with the PBSD Chairman and the CAC Chairman the proposed list of candidates to be approached and then initiate this solicitation. Solicitations for RFP to each candidate will be recorded onto a log and the log provided to PBSD and CZM /CAC. All proposals will be jointly evaluated and must be acceptable to both Collier County Coastal Zone Management /CAC and the Pelican Bay Services Division. The Evaluation and Selection process is outlined as follows: 1. Candidates will submit their qualifications, experiences, related work history and schedule for consideration. This summary should not be more that 4 pages in total length and focus on water quality, marine biology, hydrology, geology, and natural estuary/ecosystems. 2. Selection will be based on a total composite score. This score will be based on knowledge, experience, work history and background in similar ecosystems as per the criteria listed in item one above. Schedule will also be considered in this evaluation. 3. The Pelican Bay Services Division will perform their own independent evaluation and submit their three top candidates for discussion. Coastal Zone Management/CAC will do the same. The six potential candidates will be jointly evaluated by a committee consisting of The Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Vice Chair of the Pelican Bay Services Division, and the director /Manager of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Chairman of the CAC, the Vice Chair of the CAC and the Director of the CZM. This group will select and recommend the final candidate. 4. The final selection must be approved by both the Pelican Bay Services Division board and the CZM /CAC. The final candidate will also be approved by the BCC. August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of P&M Report Page 4 of 20 Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work 16 11 g March 15, 2010 March 19, 2010 —Rev. 1 June 25, 2010 — Rev. 2 June 30, 2010 — Rev. 3 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 4 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 5 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 6 July 23, 2010 — Rev. 7 Background During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved an independent peer review of the October 2009 PBS &J report and the work required to complete the development of a comprehensive management plan for the Clam Bay Estuary. Specifically, the BCC authorized that a recognized expert perform an independent review of the Final October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report feseRtfy completed by PBS &J. To complete this analysis, a thorough review of all available historical wateF quality data including the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) historical water quality data is required. This expert, jointly selected by PBSD and Coastal Zone Management (CZM), will be from an academic, university, or research institute er Rational estuaFy pFogFaR4 and not directly involved with any consulting firm. Additionally, this individual will be independent without any material relationship with the PBSD, the Pelican Bay Foundation or Collier County government. The review of the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis Report is proposed to be conducted at the beginning of e'er the development of the water flushing /circulation model. It is also recommended that the cost of this effort be split between the PBSD and CZM. Although The current financial commitment from the PBSD is only for the PBS &J report evaluation. the inte„t with aR)� development of the managemeRt plaR(s) that may be r_,reatedl After the peer review of the Final PBS &J report is completed and distributed, the PBSD will consider participating in the peer review of other studies or reports that includes the Clam Bay NRPA. Consideration A thorough review of the PBS &J report should involve a number of critical sciences. Among others, these disciplines would involve water quality, marine biology, modeling /hydrology, geology, and natural estuary/ecosystems. The water quality expertise that is required for the PBS &J report #eFe is not just the review and analysis to state standards but also expertise with respect to the proactive development of our specific water quality standards for the Clam Bay estuary system and the establishment of our own multi -year estuary management program that will address critical water quality issues as opposed to having FDEP establish solutions. While other skill sets are important, the vast majority of the reviewer expertise needs to be focused in these discipline areas. I , August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Boy Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PBS&J Report Page 5 of 20 16117plg Activities to be performed during this +n#W Peer Review 1. Review, analysis and critique of the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report dated October 2009 performed by PBSU to include: • Analysis of all available historical data including the Services Division's historical data /information. • Accuracy and sufficiency of the data collection efforts undertaken in the development of the PBSU Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report given the fragile nature of the Clam Bay NRPA, the contracting constraints and ability to augment data with future collection. and the appliGability of Using • Accuracy of methodologies used in the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report performed by PBSU. • Appropriateness of findings, aad conclusions, recommendations, and summary of the report. Evaluation of Proposals Already pre- identified candidates by the PBSD and CMZ/CAC will be solicited to submit credentials and proposals to perform a Peer Review of the PBSU Data Collection and Analysis report. Only pFe ideRtified Gandidate6 will be allewed to submit pFepesals Ife, evahlatiqR. The Collier County purchasing department would confirm with the PBSD Chairman and the CAC Chairman the proposed list of candidates to be approached and then initiate this solicitation. Solicitations for RFP to each candidate will be recorded onto a log and the log provided to PBSD and CZM /CAC. All proposals will be jointly evaluated and must be acceptable to both Collier County Coastal Zone Management /CAC and the Pelican Bay Services Division. The Evaluation and Selection process is outlined as follows: 1. Candidates will submit their qualifications, experiences, related work history and schedule for consideration. This summary should not be more that 4 pages in total length and focus on water quality, marine biology, hydrology, geology, and natural estuary/ecosystems. and 2. Selection will be based on a total composite score. This score will be based on knowledge, experience, work history and background in similar ecosystems as per the criteria listed in item one above. Schedule will also be considered in this evaluation. 3. The Pelican Bay Services Division will perform their own independent evaluation and submit their three top candidates for discussion. Coastal Zone Management/CAC will do the same. The six potential candidates will be jointly evaluated by a committee consisting of The Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Vice Chair of the Pelican Bay Services Division, and the director /Manager of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Chairman of the CAC, the Vice Chair of the CAC and the Director of the CZM. This group will select and recommend the final candidate. 4. The final selection must be approved byasseptable is both the Pelican Bay Services Division board and the CZM /CAC. The final candidate will also be approved by the BCC. August 4, 2010 - 6 a ResnickL Pel %n Boy Set"Ces oivision Boors► Regular Subject: RE: Peer Review (of PBS &1 Report) Scope of Work Finalize Scope of Work far peer Review of PaM Report Page 6 of 20 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: John Chandler [mailto :jpcbac @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 3:07 PM 19 To: ResnickL Subject: RE: Peer Review (of PBS &J Report) Scope of Work Lisa, I am comfortable with both the draft for the Peer Review Scope of Work and the draft for the Concerns about the Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study. John Chandler From: ResnickL [ mailto:LResnick @colliergov.net] Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:54 PM To: Geoffrey S. Gibson (josiegeoff @aol.com); Hunter H. Hansen (Hunter. Hanseaa hilton.com); Johan (John) Domenie (hobodory@comcast.net); John Baron obaron @watersideshops.com); John Iaizzo (iaizzo @comcast.net); John P. Chandler (jpcbac @comcast.net); Keith J. Dallas (keithdallas @comcast.net); Mary Anne Womble (Teedup I @aol.com); Michael Levy (mikelevy @embargmail.com); Theodore Raia (tedraia @yahoo.com); Tom Cravens (nfn I 6799@naples.net) Cc: McCaughtryMary; lukasz_k; Jim Powers Oim @dmgfl.com) Subject: Peer Review (of PBS &J Report) Scope of Work On behalf of Chairman Dallas, please see below and attached. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Keith Dallas [ mailto:keithdallas @comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 1:29 PM To: ResnickL Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: Peer Review Scope of Work Lisa, Would you please email this out to PBSD Board members and other interested members of the Pelican Bay community. Attach the 4 items mentioned below. As was agreed at yesterday's PBSD meeting, we will revise the draft of the Peer Review Scope of Work as presented at the meeting to include PBSD Board members and other interested parties comments received by July 19th. Items to be included with this email are: * Draft of Peer Review Scope of Work as presented to PBSD July 7, 2010 * Draft of letter titled Concerns about Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study dated July 7, 2010 * Motion passed by Board of Collier County Commissioners April 2008 regarding Clam Bay * Motion passed by Board of Collier County Commissioners December 15, 2009 regarding peer review of PBS &J Report of October 2009 Interested individuals are encouraged to submit comments on the scope of work draft and the draft of our concerns letter. General comments and concerns are helpful, but the most useful comments are those which propose specific language changes. Those persons who commented on an earlier draft should revise where appropriate and resubmit comments. The intent is to consolidate where feasible the various comments into the drafts , and then smooth the language for readability. As we agreed, comments must be received by Lisa Resnick by Monday July 19th to be included in the revised draft. The following schedule will apply: 1 of 2 7/19/2010 8:25 AM by LR August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of P&M Report * Comments received at PBSD office by Monday July 19, 2010 Page 7 of 20 * Revised drafts incorporating comments prepared for August PBSD meeting 4 * Revised draft of Peer Review Scope of Work and revised draft of Concern about Clam Bay Estlar&otelil Stu be included in package with proposed agenda for Regular PBSD meeting of August 4, 2010, entire package to be available Monday July 26, 2010. Please send the comments only to Lisa Resnick at the above address. Do not copy to PBSD Board members since this could be considered in violation of Sunshine Rules. It is our intent to distribute the received comments along with the revised drafts as part of the August 4 PBSD meeting package. Our objective for the August 4, 2010 PBSD meeting is to finalize these two drafts, recognizing that our initial discussions on Peer Review of the PBS &J Report started in December 2009, and to not finalize these drafts on August 4th would give our critics ample ammunition to say that Pelican Bay is not being cooperative. We have put enormous effort into this peer review concept to date, and I would hate to see it end in failure because of an inability to agree on specific language. Writing by committee is never easy, but with the right attitude, we should be able to move on in this process. Keith Lisa Resnick Administrative Assistant Pelican Bay Services Division A Municipal Service Taxing & Benefit Unit of Collier County Florida 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 Tel. 239.597.1749 Fax 239.597.4502 Iresnickcr�,collier og v.net http: / /pelicanbayservicesdivision.net < http:// pelicanb4yservicesdivision .net/> 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. 2 of 2 7/19/2010 8:25 AM by LR August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Stope of Work for Peer Review of PSM RepW Page 8 of 20 Clam Bay Estuary 16 11 Peer Review Scope of Work StA b rwaT%Qj 6Y T. C�,V�.S � Pc�.c�.w Jay r*4 1 tVii >3w n" M Suggestions for improvements to the PBSD Draft Peer Review Scope of Work to more closely reflect the discussion and member comment at the PBSD June 2, 2010 meeting: Background First paragraph - add "NRPA" to end of sentence, to read Clam Bay Estuary NRPA. Second paragraph, second sentence - remove water quality and replace with "historical ". The sentence would be stated ...review all available historical data. Second paragraph, third sentence - remove "or national estuary program ". Third paragraph - either remove everything after the second sentence, or change the third sentence as follows - remove "Although" and place a period after evaluation. Either end it there or add a fourth sentence to state - Only after the Peer Review of the PBSJ "Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis" is done, would PBSD consider participating in further Review on additional Clam Bay reports, or studies, The PBSD will not commit to any additional participation until this first Peer Review selection process for a reviewer is complete and the result of the Peer Review provided to the PBSD Board. Consideration First paragraph, second sentence - remove everything after natural estuary/ ecosystems, as it's redundant due to "water quality" already mentioned in the first sentence. The PBSD is not at this time committing to anything other than what is necessary for the Independent Peer Review of the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis report. Second paragraph - remove entire paragraph for reasons already stated. The PBSD reserves the ability to participate on further participation until after this Peer Review is done. Activities Second bullet- Add "accuracy and" to start of sentence. To state Accuracy and suffiencv of the data collection efforts... Place a period after the word report. No excuses or allowances should be built into the Review for lack or failure of the report's sufficiency or accuracy. Third bullet - Add "accuracy and sufficiency of" to start of sentence. To state Accuracy and Sufficiency f Methodologies used... Fourth bullet - Add "Appropriatef" to start of sentence and add " recommendations, and summary that is attached to the report " at end of sentence. To state, 442 August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PBS&/ Report Page 9 of 20 V AppLa ra iate findings, conclusion, recommendations and summary that 11 &atA B 19 to the re Qrrt. Evaluation of Proposals First paragraph, first sentence - add "Already" to start of sentence and "by the PBSD and CMZ /CAC ". Add "and proposals" after credentials. Second sentence - remove entirely. Third sentence - add in conjunction with the PBSD Chairman and CAC Chairman approvals of the list containing those candidates being solicited by the Purchasing Department. Solicitations for RFP to each candidate will be recorded onto a log and the log provided to the PBSD and CZM /CAC. Item 1. - second sentence - add "Florida water quality standards /guidelines" and a period after natural estuary /ecosystems. Remove remainder of sentence. Item 2. - second sentence - place period after ecosystems and remove remainder of that sentence. Leave third sentence as is. Item 3. - Third sentence - add "full PBSD Board and Full CAC Board ", after jointly evaluated by... To read The six potential candidates will be jointly evaluated by the Full PBSD Board and Full CAC Board Remove everythina else after this sentence, submitted by Tom Cravens, for July 7, 2010 PBSD meeting 2 to f,. 'a, August 4, 2010 - 6 a ResnickL Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Worrk for Peer Review of POM Report Subject: RE:Afavor Page 10 of 20 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Gwen Rasiwala [mailto:grasiwala @pelicanbay.org] Sent: "Thursday, July 15, 2010 6:35 PM To: ResnickL Subject: Fw: A favor Gwen O. Rasiwala Community Center Manager Community Center at Pelican Bay 239 -597 -8877 ext 101 From: Johan Domenie <hobodory@comcast.net> To: Gwen Rasiwala Sent: Thu Jul 15 17:44:13 2010 Subject: A favor I am having trouble communicating by e -mail with Lisa Resnick at the PBSD> Could you forward the following to her from me, please? Thanks John Suggested changes as requested: "BACKGROUND Proposed wording for the first paragraph: 16 11 819 "During their regular December meeting, the Board of Collier County Commissioners approved an independent peer review of the work performed (dated...........) by PBS &J. This peer review must be completed and approved by the PBSD and the Coastal Zone Management prior to the development of a comprehensive management plan of the Clam Bay NRPA. Such a future comprehensive management plan of the NRPA excludes the bays to the south: Venetian Bay & Moorings Bay." Question: why should the PBSD contribute financially to any studies being made in the city's bays ? ? ? ?? Specifically the BCC authorized the following Resolution: To complete this peer review analysis, a thorough review of all available historical data, including the PBSD historical data is required. (Since I do not have the exact wording of the BCC Resolution I do not know if we have to include the following): The selected expert, jointly selected by the PBSD and CZM will be from an academic, university or research institute, and not directly involved with any consulting entity. This expert will be independent without any relationship with the PBSD, the Pelican Bay Foundation or Collier County Government. In the second paragraph eliminate "early in the development" and substitute "before ". I realize that some of the work for the development of the water flushing/circulation model has started, but I do not understand how this work can proceed if the available data is incorrect or not available. In the next to the last line of the second paragraph insert '`peer" after the word "Program ". 1 of 2 7/19/2010 9:07 AM by LR August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Do we need the last paragraph on page One? Finalize smpeofWor k for peer Review ofPRMReport Page 11 of 20 At the top of page two eliminate the word "initial ". _ Shouldn't the first line read: "1.- Review, analyze and critique...." Not "analysis ". Should we also include any data developed by Turrell Hall and Humiston & Moore ?? Should "Clam Bay System" be defined — again ? ?? Just some thoughts John 2 of 2 7/19/2010 9:07 AM by LR ResnickL August 4, 2010 - 6 a 1 of 1 7/19/2010 9:02 AM by LR pelican Boy Services Division Boom/ Regular From: Sent: Mike Lev mikelev Levy [ y @embargmail.com) Friday, July 16, 2010 5:10 PM FIMNte SCOpe Of WOlkfor Peer Review Of P85&/ /jePpK To: ResnickL Page 12 of 20 Subject: Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work Attachments: scan0001.pdf 1611 B Attached please find my comments to the July 1, 2010 - Rev. 5 Scope of Work. Mike Levy mikelevva,,embaramail.com 1 of 1 7/19/2010 9:02 AM by LR August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PaSW Report Page 13 of 20 Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work 16 It 1 Change first paragraph to read: During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the BCCCs approved an independent peer review of the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report prepared by PBS&J and dated October, 2009. Furthermore, the approval motion states that the independent expert is to be jointly selected by Coastal Zone Management and the Pelican Bay Services Division. Second Paragraph: Delete i'st sentence. Remove "national estuary program" from 3'rd sentence. Add two sentences to the end, "Ideally, the peer review should be completed before a Water Circulation/ Flushing Modeling Program is undertaken by Coastal Zone Management. In any case, it should be undertaken as soon as possible." Delete the Third Paragraph First Paragraph: End the second sentence as follows: "----- - -- geology, natural estuary/ecosystems." (PBSD is not part of the water flushing/ circulation model program). Delete the Second Paragraph. I agree with the changes proposed by Tom Cravens in his email for the July 7, 2010 PBSD Board Meeting. Eyaivation of Pr000salls First Paragraph; no comment. Item 1. End the second sentence as follows: "------ - - - - -- marine biology, hydrology, geology, and natural estuary/ ecosystems." (The reference to the water flushing/ circulation model program has been deleted). Item 3. 1 am in agreement with Tom Cravens email distributed at the PBSD July 7, 2010 board meeting. ResnickL August 4, 2010 - 6 a Subject: RE: friendly reminder... - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Theodore Raia [mai Ito: tedraia@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:30 PM To: ResnickL Subject: Re: friendly reminder... Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Ffnolize scope of Woo for Peer Review of PBS&/ Report Page 14 of 20 1611 B19 Lisa, I thought I sent my priority list. I don't have any comments about the peer review except that I am more concerned about the actions of Steve Feldhaus and the foundation committee. I will be at the August meeting. Ted - -- On Mon, 7/19/10, ResnickL <LResnick @colliergov.net> wrote: From: ResnickL <LResnick @colliergov.net> Subject: friendly reminder... To: "Geoffrey S. Gibson oosiegeoff @aol.com)" <josiegeoff @aol.com >, "Hunter H. Hansen (Hunter.Hansen @hilton.com)" <Hunter.Hansen @hilton.com >, ri Johan (John) Domenie (hobodory @comcast.net)" <hobodory @comcast.net >, "John Baron obaron @watersideshops.com)" <jbaron @vatersideshops.com >, "John Iaizzo (iaizzo @comcast.net)" <iaizzo @comcast.net >, "John P. Chandler opcbac @comcast .net)" <jpcbac @comcast.net >, "Keith J. Dallas (keithdallas @comcast.net)" <keithdallas @comcast.net >, "Mary Anne Womble (Teedupl @aol.com)" <Teedupl @aol.com >, "Michael Levy (mikelevy @embarqmail.com)" <mikelevy @embargmail.com >, "Theodore Raia (tedraia @yahoo.com)" <tedraia @yahoo.com >, "Tom Cravens (nfn 16799 @naples.net)" <nfn l 6799 @naples.net> Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 11:47 AM Just a friendly reminder if you haven't turned in your community improvement plan priorities form, or comments regarding the peer review, please send them to me as soon as you can. Thanks, Lisa Lisa Resnick Administrative Assistant Pelican Bay Services Division A Municipal Service Taxing & Benefit Unit of Collier County Florida 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 Tel. 239.597.1749 Fax 239.597.4502 Iresnick a colliergov.net http ://pelicanbayservicesdivision net <http : //p elicanbayservicesdivision net /> 1 of 1 7/19/2010 1:06 PM by LR August 4, 2010 Mr. John Sorey III, Chairman Coastal Advisory Committee City of Naples 220 Gulfshore Blvd. N Naples, FL 34102 Mr. Anthony Pires, Chairman Clam Bay Subcommittee of CAC 209 Madison Drive Naples, FL 34108 RE: Concerns about Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study Dear Sirs: August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PSW Report Page 15 of 20 1611'819 The Pelican Bay Service Division Board is concerned that any assumptions used in the proposed Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study be fully vetted and only be used after the Clam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Final Report completed in October 2009 by PBS &J has been properly peer reviewed in its entirety. The results of any modeling are only as valid as the reliability of its input data. For instance, one of the criticisms of the PBS &J Report to date has questioned the very limited and unreliable tidal data collected within Clam Pass. The PBS &J Report concluded the data unreliable, and assumed it was similar to data collected in the Gulf in much deeper water. We feel such extrapolated data should be carefully peer reviewed before it becomes the basis of the Modeling Study. We encourage that this entire process be carefully vetted at each phase and the assumptions for future phases only be finalized after there is general agreement among experts as to the reasonableness of the results of each prior phase. To do otherwise will only serve to cast doubt on the validity of the final conclusions. Another concern of the Services Division is the way the Clam Bay Estuary has been defined to include bodies of water extending south to Doctor's Pass. In the past, Clam Bay consisted only of the NRPA. We are concerned that actions taken to improve the water quality of Venetian Bay and Moorings Bay might harm the water quality of the Clam Bay NRPA. We therefore urge that any actions initiated because of subsequent studies only be taken after careful consideration of the fragile nature of the Clam Bay NRPA and the possibility of unintended consequences. Sincerely, Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Pelican Bay Services Division Board Cc: Leo Ochs Gary McAlpin August 4,J+41 -7, 2010 Mr. John Sorey 111, Chairman Coastal Advisory Committee City of Naples 220 Gulfshore Blvd. N Naples, FL 34102 Mr. Anthony Pires, Chairman Clam Bay Subcommittee of CAC 209 Madison Drive Naples, FL 34108 RE: Concerns about Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study Dear Sirs: August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Smpe of Work for Peer Review of PaW RepoK Page 16 of 20 1611 B19 The Pelican Bay Service Division Board is concerned that any assumptions used in the proposed Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study be fully vetted and only be used 4nalized after the Clam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Final Report completed in October 2009 by PBS &J has been properly peer reviewed in its entirety. The results of any modeling are only as valid as the reliability of its input data. For instance, one of the criticisms of the PBS &J Report to date has questioned the very limited and unreliable tidal data collected within Clam Pass. The PBS &J Report concluded the data unreliable, and assumed it was similar to data 4at-e collected in the Gulf in much deeper water. We feel such extrapolated data should be carefully peer reviewed before it becomes the basis of the Modeling Study. We encourage that this entire process be carefully vetted at each phase and the assumptions for future phases only be finalized after there is general agreement among experts as to the reasonableness of the results of each prior phase. To do otherwise will only serve to cast doubt on the validity of the final conclusions. Another concern of the Services Division is the way the Clam Bay Estuary has been defined to include bodies of water extending south to Doctor's Pass. In the past, Clam Bay consisted only of the NRPA. Altheugh .definitions by themselves are obably not t *, We are concerned y that somehow future pr-ojeets actions taken to improve the water quality in the g "" ^* "r Cl B" a b n � Pass of Venetian Bay and Moorings Bay might ultimatel harm the water quality of the Clam Bay NRPA. as traditionally defined by t Services Divi . We therefore urge that any actions initiated because of subsequent studies only be taken after careful consideration of the fragile nature of the Clam Bay NRPA and the possibility of unintended consequences. Sincerely, Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Pelican Bay Services Division Board Cc: Leo Ochs Gary McAlpin Lisa: refer to the proposed letter to Sorey & Pires. August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Boy Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Wont far peer Review of PSSW R sport Page 17 of 20 1611 619 In the second paragraph I believe there is a misprint: "date" should read "data ". In the last paragraph I would eliminate the word "traditional' and just state "Clam Bay as defined by the BCC in April 2008" Provided that is the correct definition. August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Wor* far Peer Review of PBS&/ Report Page 18 of 20 July 7, 2010 Mr. John Sorey III, Chairman 1611 Coastal Advisory Committee City of Naples 220 Gulfshore Blvd. N Naples, FL 34102 Mr. Anthony Pires, Chairman Clam Bay Subcommittee of CAC fill ""' 209 Madison Drive ' Naples, FL 34108 ! RE: Concerns about Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study Dear Sirs: f c The Pelican Bay Service Division Board is concernedl that an assu#n do Lused in th e Y proposed Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study be tully vetted anc on " er the �am Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Final Report completed in October 2009 by PBS &j has been properly peer reviewed in- its entirety. The results of any modeling are only as valid as the reliability of its input data.. ' For instance one of the cri4cis I I � 11 ms o the PBS&J deport to date h, ' questioned the very Iimited and unreliable tidal data co]lected within Cla Bass. T3ie PBS ..Report concluded the data unreliable, and assumed rt was similar to ollectedin theulfin much deeper water. We feet such extrapolated tlata should be care y peer reviewed before it becomes the basis of the Modeling Study: . !! �� I (Il� We encourage that this entire rocess be carefutl vetted at each phase and the assumptions Process � ' � Y P pt<ons for future phases only be finalized after there is general agreement among experts as to the reasonableness of the -ices tlts of each prior phase. To do otherwise will only serve to cast doubt on tt a validity of the f hatconclusiQns. Another concern of the Se. I ces Di`rision is the way the Clam Bay Estuary has been defined to include bodies of water extending south to Doctor's Pass. Although definitions by themselves are probably not impb4ant, we worry that somehow future projects to improve water quality in the:greater_ Clam Bay extending to Doctor's Pass might ultimately harm the water quality of Clam Bay as tradWmrAy defined by Ole . We therefore urge that any actions initiated because of subsequent studies o be taken after careful consideration of the fragile nature ofClam Bay and the possibility of uni tended consequences. Sincerely, e C, Qt-J Pr r+) 1,, 0W'V V Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Pelican Bay Services Division Board :.c: Leo Ochs Gary McAlpin August 4, 2010 - 6 a ResnickL Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular From: Mike Levy [mikelevy @embargmail.coml Finalize Scope of Work for Peer ReWewof PSW Report Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 3:51 PM Page 19 of 20 To: ResnickL Subject: Concerns about Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study Attachments: scan0001.pdf Attached lease find m take on the draft "Concerns About Clam Bay Estuary P Y Modeling Study". th'e'ist �eto9P'eer Y rY g Y Review of PBS &J Report dated------- - - - - -" and have added another dimension to the letter; that PBSD would like to get the peer review underway, but are faced with language attempting to enlarge the task to include water circulation modeling and an overall Clam Bay Management Plan. The attached draft reflects my concern that an attempt is being made to make it look like PBSD is part of the overall Clam Bay project; that we are not and want to get the peer review of the PBS &J Report underway as we originally proposed and was approved by the BCCC. Mike Levy mikeleyy( embargenail.com 1 of 1 7/19/2010 9:03 AM by LR August 4, 2010 - 6 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Finalize Scope of Work for Peer Review of PBS&J Report Page 20 of 20 To: John Sorey 111, Chairman Coastal Advisory Committee 1611 Anthony Pines, Chairman Clam Bay Subcommittee of CAC B # Subject: Peer Review of PBS&J Clam Bay System Data Collection Analysis Report dated October, 2009. Dear Sirs: PBSD has serious concerns regarding the validity of the methodology and conclusions of subject report. Our concerns are further heightened as this report is apparently being used as the basis of a Clam Bay Water Circulation /Flushing Modeling Program and possibly further work in Clam Bay. Accordingly we proposed, and the county agreed to a jointly sponsored PBSD/ CZM peer review of subject report. The BCCC approved the joint peer review of subject report on December 15, 2009 and we would very much like to see it underway. We are troubled that the flawed subject report is being used by PBS&J as the basis for further studies In Clam Bay, paid for by Collier County Taxpayers. The results of any modeling are only as valid as the reliability of its input data. So what is holding up getting the Peer Review of subject report underway? From our point of view, it Is language added into each draft Scope of Work that attempts to include a Water Circulation /Flushing Modeling Program as well as the development of a comprehensive management plan for Clam Bay. The implication being that somehow PBSD is a part of this overall effort. This is simply not true; PBSD is not in any way part of the CAC activities in Clam Bay. We simply asked for a peer review of subject report, strongly support the BCCC approval of same, and would like to see it underway. We would like to finake the Peer Review Scope of Work with the CAC (without added tasks). The PBSD Board has approved only a peer review of the subject PBS&J report. Another concern of the PBSD is that the CAC is using the term Clam Bay to include bodies of water extending south to Doctor's Pass. In the past, Clam Bay consisted only of the NRPA. We are concerned that actions taken to Improve the water quality of Venetian Bay and Moorings Bay might harm the water quality of the Clam Bay NRPA. As you may be aware, Pelican Bay residents spend in the area of $1M a year to maintain the water quality of the Clam Bay NRPA. We therefore urge that any actions initiated because of subsequent studies only be taken after careful consideration of the fragile nature of Clam Bay NRPA, and the possibility of unintended consequences. Sincerely, Keith J. Dallas, Chairman PBSD Cc: Leo Ochs, Gary McAlpin From: Keith Dallas To: Resnirkl Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: Proposed Draft pf Peer Review Scope of Work Date: Friday, July 30, 2010 2:24:04 PM Attachments: Peer Review Draft ES - R- 3- 1_doc-x yFTi7;rnW"Tsa onr .c c u t- August 4, 2010 - 6a - Appendix A Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1611819 Lisa, Attached are revised drafts of the Peer Review Scope of Work (one in final form, and one showing the initial changes in red and subsequent changes in blue). Please distribute them along with my explanation to PBSD board members and the interested public in anticipation of discussion at the PBSD meeting of August 4th. First, for some background on what has happened since our last PBSD meeting. After our meeting, I updated Gary McAlpin and the Clam Bay Subcommittee on the discussions at our July PBSD meeting and tried to address the concern that the PBSD and CZM were never going to agree on a peer review process (see Gary McAlpin's July 8th email to CAC that was distributed earlier). I said we had spent a lot of effort on this, and hoped we could resolve the language in August. After discussions with Steve Feldhaus, CZM subsequently has concluded that it prefers to split the Clam Bay issues into 2 segments, the review of the PBS&J report continuing with the PBSD, and future projects like water circulation modeling being with the Foundation (See 7/21/10 Clam Bay Subcommittee agenda item Clam Bay Sub - Committee Peer Review Discussion attached). After receiving comments from individuals, we took those comments and the ones received at our last meeting, and incorporated as many of the comments as possible into the July 23rd draft. On Thursday I had a meeting with Gary McAlpin of CZM to review the July 23rd proposed language to see if he would recommend their acceptance by the CAC and the Clam Bay Subcommittee. After much discussion we agreed to present the attached draft including the changes in blue to both organizations. The rationale for the changes: * We wanted everyone to understand that the proposed language is a "guideline document ". We recognize that there are concerns that this language may be manipulated by others. The idea of a "guideline" recognizes that each group may interpret the words differently, and that the ultimate fail safe is that each group (the PBSD and the CAC) will independently rank responding professionals using their own methods and priorities, and reserve the option of designating some responders as unacceptable to their organization. * Specifically, the new first paragraph deals with the "guidance" issue. * The second paragraph of "background" uses both "historical" and "water quality" data. The point is we want all the relevant data reviewed. * Gary wanted the reference to "national estuary program" left in definitions. I think this is an area where many Pelican Bay people are suspicious of such experts, but I see no harm in including the language as a possibility. PBSD has the option of saying a certain professional is unacceptable. * In the third "background" paragraph we left in "early in" the development of the water flushing /circulation model, versus "at the beginning of'. As some who commented on this language indicated, it is semantics since in one sense that project has already commenced. I think in our other letter we will emphasize the need to resolve the validity of the conclusions of the PBS&J report before going too far with any future modeling. * In the first paragraph of the "considerations" section, we left in a reference to "knowledge of Florida water quality standards /guidelines along with modeling, modeling data and collection methodologies ". Again this is an area where people may interpret the words differently. It was left in because the PBS&J report mentions these items and a thorough review should comment on the appropriateness of all their comments and conclusions. Again, different readers may have different opinions on the width and depth the reviewer should have in these areas. Page 1 of 9 07/30/2010 @ 2:44 PM August 4, 2010 - 6a - Appendix A Pelican Bay Services Division Board u es .161. l I B19 * Second bullet of "activities to be performed" section includes "the applicability of using the collected data in the proposed water circulation /flushing model program ". Since it is discussed in the PBS&J report it is better that it is discussed by the reviewer. * We kept in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the "evaluation of proposals" section, even though the first sentence probably says the same thing. * The rest of this draft is the same as the draft of Monday, July 23rd. I would like everyone to review all this language. Please recognize that everyone is most comfortable with the language he /she drafted themselves. I think we should review the language in its' entirety, and remember it is a guideline. Ultimately we will decide as a group which responders we will recommend in what order, and which are unacceptable on any basis. Time is quickly running out. It is my opinion that this meeting is probably the last opportunity the PBSD will be given to develop a peer review process with the County. If we don't come up with concrete language, we will be seen as a group with which the County can't work and they may take the PBS&J report to the FDEP for a rubber stamp. At Wednesday's meeting, after appropriate discussions of all members and concerned public, I would like to vote the proposed language either up or down. A yes vote would take us to the next steps, the request for proposals, the responses, the meeting for the PBSD and CZM /CAC to separately prioritize the responses etc. A no vote will stop the discussions and probably cause the County to go their own way. Page 2 of 9 07/30/2010 @ 2:44 PM August 4, 2010 - 6a - Appendix A Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1611 B19 ' Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work March 15, 2010 March 19, 2010 — Rev. 1 June 25, 2010 — Rev. 2 June 30, 2010 — Rev. 3 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 4 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 5 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 6 July 23, 2010 — Rev. 7 July 29, 2010 —Rev 8 This is a guideline document developed by the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) and the Coastal Zone Management/Coastal Advisory Committee (CZM /CAC) with the intent of providing guidance to aid the PBSD and CZM /CAC in jointly selecting a peer reviewer for the October 2009 PBSD report described below. Background During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved an independent peer review of the October 2009 PBSD report and the work required to complete the development of a comprehensive management plan for the Clam Bay Estuary. Specifically, the BCC authorized that a recognized expert perform an independent review of the Final October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report completed by PBSD. To complete this analysis, a thorough review of all available historical /water quality data including the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) historical water quality data is required. This expert, jointly selected by PBSD and Coastal Zone Management (CZM), will be from an academic, university, research institute or national estuary program and not directly involved with any consulting firm. Additionally, this individual will be independent without any material relationship with the PBSD, the Pelican Bay Foundation or Collier County government. The review of the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis Report is proposed to be conducted early in the development of the water flushing /circulation model. It is also recommended that the cost of this effort be split between the PBSD and CZM. The current financial commitment from the PBSD is only for the PBSD report evaluation. After the peer review of the Final PBSD report is completed and distributed, the PBSD will consider participating in the peer review of other studies or reports that includes the Clam Bay NRPA. Consideration A thorough review of the PBSD report should involve a number of critical sciences. Among others, these disciplines would involve water quality, marine biology, modeling /hydrology, geology, natural estuary/ecosystems and knowledge of Florida water quality standards /guidelines along with modeling, modeling data and collection methodologies. The water quality expertise that is required for the PBSD report is not just the review and analysis to state standards but also expertise with respect to the proactive development of our specific water quality standards for the Clam Bay estuary system and the establishment of our own multi -year estuary management program that will address critical water quality issues as opposed to having FDEP establish solutions. While other skill sets are important, the vast majority of the reviewer expertise needs to be focused in these discipline areas. Page 3 of 9 07/30/2010 @ 2:44 PM August 4, 2010 - 6a - Appendix A Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 161 I B19 Activities to be performed during this Peer Review 1. Review, analysis and critique of the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report dated October 2009 performed by PBS &J to include: • Analysis of all available historical data including the Services Division's historical data /information. • Accuracy and sufficiency of the data collection efforts undertaken in the development of the PBS &J Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report given the fragile nature of the Clam Bay NRPA, the contracting constraints and ability to augment data with future collection and the applicability of using the collected data in the proposed water circulation /flushing model program. • Accuracy of methodologies used in the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report performed by PBS &J. • Appropriateness of findings, conclusions, recommendations, and summary of the report. Evaluation of Proposals Already pre- identified candidates by the PBSD and CMZ/CAC will be solicited to submit credentials and proposals to perform a Peer Review of the PBS &J Data Collection and Analysis report. Only pre- identified candidates will be allowed to submit proposals for evaluation. The Collier County purchasing department would confirm with the PBSD Chairman and the CAC Chairman the proposed list of candidates to be approached and then initiate this solicitation. Solicitations for RFP to each candidate will be recorded onto a log and the log provided to PBSD and CZM /CAC. All proposals will be jointly evaluated and must be acceptable to both Collier County Coastal Zone Management /CAC and the Pelican Bay Services Division. The Evaluation and Selection process is outlined as follows: 1. Candidates will submit their qualifications, experiences, related work history and schedule for consideration. This summary should not be more that 4 pages in total length and focus on water quality, marine biology, hydrology, geology, and natural estuary/ecosystems. 2. Selection will be based on a total composite score. This score will be based on knowledge, experience, work history and background in similar ecosystems as per the criteria listed in item one above. Schedule will also be considered in this evaluation. 3. The Pelican Bay Services Division will perform their own independent evaluation and submit their three top candidates for discussion. Coastal Zone Management/CAC will do the same. The six potential candidates will be jointly evaluated by a committee consisting of The Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Vice Chair of the Pelican Bay Services Division, and the director /Manager of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Chairman of the CAC, the Vice Chair of the CAC and the Director of the CZM. This group will select and recommend the final candidate. 4. The final selection must be approved by both the Pelican Bay Services Division board and the CZM /CAC. The final candidate will also be approved by the BCC. Page 4 of 9 07/30/2010 @ 2:44 PM August 4, 2010 - 6a - Appendix A Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work March 15, 2010 March 19, 2010 — Rev. 1 June 25, 2010 — Rev. 2 June 30, 2010 — Rev. 3 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 4 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 5 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 6 July 23, 2010 — Rev. 7 July 29, 2010 — Rev 8 1611 B19 This is a guideline document developed by the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) and the Coastal Zone Management/Coastal Advisory Committee (CZM /CAC) with the intent of providing guidance to aid the PBSD and CZM /CAC in jointly selecting a peer reviewer for the October 2009 PBSD report described below. Background During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved an independent peer review of the October 2009 PBSW report and the work required to complete the development of a comprehensive management plan for the Clam Bay Estuary. Specifically, the BCC authorized that a recognized expert perform an independent review of the Final October 2009 Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report reGeRtly completed by PBSD. To complete this analysis, a thorough review of all available historical /water quality data including the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) historical water quality data is required. This expert, jointly selected by PBSD and Coastal Zone Management (CZM), will be from an academic, university, of research institute or national estuary program and not directly involved with any consulting firm. Additionally, this individual will be independent without any material relationship with the PBSD, the Pelican Bay Foundation or Collier County government. The review of the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis Report is proposed to be conducted at the - beginning -ef early in the development of the water flushing /circulation model. It is also recommended that the cost of this effort be split between the PBSD and CZM. Altheagh The current financial commitment from the PBSD is only for the PBSD report evaluation. the ,t After the peer review of the Final PBSD report is completed and distributed, the PBSD will consider participating in the peer review of other studies or reports that includes the Clam Bay NRPA. Consideration A thorough review of the PBSD report should involve a number of critical sciences. Among others, these disciplines would involve water quality, marine biology, modeling /hydrology, geology, avA, natural estuary/ecosystems and knowledge of watelF quality a44d-Florida water quality standards /guidelines along with modeling, modeling data and collection methodologies. The water quality expertise that is required for the PBSD report here is not just the review and analysis to state standards but also expertise with respect to the proactive development of our specific water quality standards for the Clam Bay estuary system and the establishment of our Page 5 of 9 07/30/2010 @ 2:44 PM August 4, 2010 - 6a - Appendix A Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1611 B19 I' own multi -year estuary management program that will address critical water quality issues as opposed to having FDEP establish solutions. While other skill sets are important, the vast majority of the reviewer expertise needs to be focused in these discipline areas. Activities to be performed during this +n#iall Peer Review 2. Review, analysis and critique of the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report dated October 2009 performed by PBSU to include: • Analysis of all available historical data including the Services Division's historical data /information. • Accuracy and sufficiency of the data collection efforts undertaken in the development of the PBSU Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis report given the fragile nature of the Clam Bay NRPA, the contracting constraints and ability to augment data with future collection and the applicability of using the collected data in the proposed water circulation /flushing model program. • Accuracy of methodologies used in the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report performed by PBSU. • Appropriateness of findings, aPA conclusions, recommendations, and summary of the report. Evaluation of Proposals Already pre- identified candidates by the PBSD and CMZ/CAC will be solicited to submit credentials and proposals to perform a Peer Review of the PBSU Data Collection and Analysis report. Only pre- identified candidates will be allowed to submit proposals for evaluation. The Collier County purchasing department would confirm with the PBSD Chairman and the CAC Chairman the proposed list of candidates to be approached and then initiate this solicitation. Solicitations for RFP to each candidate will be recorded onto a log and the log provided to PBSD and CZM /CAC. All proposals will be jointly evaluated and must be acceptable to both Collier County Coastal Zone Management /CAC and the Pelican Bay Services Division. The Evaluation and Selection process is outlined as follows: 5. Candidates will submit their qualifications, experiences, related work history and schedule for consideration. This summary should not be more that 4 pages in total length and focus on water quality, marine biology, hydrology, geology, and natural estuary/ecosystems. and 6. Selection will be based on a total composite score. This score will be based on knowledge, experience, work history and background in similar ecosystems as per the criteria listed in item one above. Schedule will also be considered in this evaluation. 7. The Pelican Bay Services Division will perform their own independent evaluation and submit their three top candidates for discussion. Coastal Zone Management/CAC will do the same. The six potential candidates will be jointly evaluated by a committee consisting of The Chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Vice Chair of the Pelican Bay Services Division, and the director /Manager of the Pelican Bay Services Division, the Chairman of the CAC, the Vice Chair of the CAC and the Director of the CZM. This group will select and recommend the final candidate. 8. The final selection must be approved byasgepe both the Pelican Bay Services Division board and the CZM /CAC. The final candidate will also be approved by the BCC. Page 6 of 9 07/30/2010 @ 2:44 PM 7121110 Au ust 4, 2 ��6a - Appendix A d 4 - esJWaoard Regular Session �7 B19 Clam Bay Sub - Committee Peer Review Discussion Background At the 12/15/2009 BCC meeting the Board approved the following objective for Clam Bay: "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 June 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." Also during the considerations portion of the executive summary, the following was discussed and approved concerning Peer Review: "It is also recommended 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 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 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." The following budget was approved at that time: Fund 111 - Unincorporated Collier Coun Court Recording and Documentation Costs $3,400 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 Page 7 of 9 07/30/2010 @ 2:44 PM August 4, 2010 - 6a - Appendix A Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1611 B19 Although the PBSD was identified as the organization to jointly participate with CZM in the peer review, the PBSD has focused only on the peer review of the Data Collection and Analysis Report from PBSU not committed to the more important modeling program. PBSD has sought to limit their commitment/participation to this portion of the project. Additionally, they have proven very hard to reach agreement with on the scope of this peer review. The modeling program is the heart of the program and the area needed to concentrate our technical expertise on. The Pelican Bay Foundation has approached the County staff with a request to participate in the technical development and review of the modeling program with two independent qualified consultants. This proposal is acceptable to the County because: 1. It establishes a working relationship and framework with the Pelican Bay Community to discuss and address technical issues. 2. It is proposed in a collaborative working relationship as opposed to a critique format. 3. It provides additional technical expertise to confirm our focus, approach and conclusions. 4. The PB Foundation will pay for their own consultants with the only cost incurred by the County being to bring these consultants up to speed with the background and results to date. 5. It allows us to begin discussion and work of the modeling process. 6. While we are working on the technical issues of the modeling program with the PB Foundation, it allows us to continue to try to reach closure with the PBSD on the Peer Review of the PBSU Data Collection and Analysis report. Staff has reevaluated the existing budget and is recommending that the budget be reprogrammed to provide more money for Peer Review and that the peer review be reallocated into two phases: 1. One portion of the Peer Review would be the peer review of the PBSU Data Collection and Analysis report. This can be completed anytime when and if agreement is reached with the PBSD on the scope of this work. If agreement is not reached then FDEP has expressed a willingness to evaluate the report and comment on it accuracy and credibility. $4,500 has been set aside for the County portion of this work. 2. The second portion of this work is the technical participation and review of the modeling program. $25,000 has been set aside for this work which would involve bring the Foundations consultants up to speed and more group /discussion meetings to discuss scope, review results and formulate next steps and findings. Page 8 of 9 07/30/2010 @ 2:44 PM Our revised budget projections are as follows: Fund 111 - Unincorporated Collier County Court Recording and Documentation Costs Water Quality Monitoring in Clam Bay System Chemicals and YSI probes lab Fees (9 locations for 12 months) Consulting and Analysis Support Public Outreach and Communication Peer Review of the PBSD Report - PBSD Peer Review of Modeling - PB Foundation Sediment toxicology Beach /Inlet Safety signs and Permitting Permit/Install Nav Markers in Clam Bay Wildlife and Habitat Preliminary Analysis August 4, 2010 - 6a - Appendix A Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 161sT g19 Budget Revised Spent Available To Go $3,400 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $500 $1,000 $800 $800 $0 $0 $18,000 $15,000 $12,500 $2,500 $2,500 $4,000 $4,000 $0 $4,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $4,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $30,000 $30,000 $31,831 - $1,831 - $1,831 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $15,000 $15,000 $0 $15,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 Total $102,400 $97,800 $47,131 $50,669 $50,669 A recommendation is sought to move forward with this plan. The latest revision to the PBSD peer review program is attached. Page 9 of 9 07/30/2010 @ 2:44 PM ResnickL Subject: John Domenie 8/4/10 RE: Peer Review - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Johan Domenie [mailto:hobodory @comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 11:49 PM To: ResnickL Subject: Peer Review Lisa: 16 1111 B19 I have just come back from seeing "Norma" at the Silverspot Cinema, and this is probably not the best time to start writing a very important memo. However we will have a full agenda tomorrow and I would like you to distribute this memo to everyone by e- mail as soon as possible — and possibly bring some copies to the meeting for those who did not open their a -mails before the meeting. In first place I think all of us have to be very grateful for all the time and effort Keith is dedicating to the matter of "Peer Review ". Many of us probably could not put up with facing and listening to Gary's interpretations of items relating to the Peer Review — and other matters. So, Keith — many thanks for your efforts to produce a workable document. I will number my comments so that they are easily identified: 1.- Why has the "CZM subsequently concluded that it (CZM) prefers to split the Clam Bay issues into 2 segments ". I can not understand the reasoning behind this suggestion — except that the negotiations with the Ad -Hoc Committee are expected to drag on until January next year — before something in writing may be ready to be presented to the BCC. 2.- I fail to understand the opening paragraph of the proposed "Peer Review Scope of Work ". This is not a firm document — it is merely a guideline — and in the explanation it goes on to say "each group may interpret the words differently "! So we are saying that the whole document will be open to debate and open to interpretation. Among such interpretations could be the term "Clam Bay" — we interpret it one way, the CZM interprets it differently — who then decides. NO! This is not to be a guideline but a firm document without any room for "interpretations ". This opening paragraph can not and must not be accepted. Who came up with this wording and why? 3.- In the third paragraph the words "national estuary program" AGAIN appear, even though at our July 7th Board meeting a motion was unanimously passed to strike such wording from the proposed Peer Review. Was the CZM made aware of this. We DO NOT want this in the Peer Review document. The comment states that we have the option of stating that a certain professional is not acceptable. If it is not acceptable do not include it in this document. 4.- I read "In our letter we will emphasize the need to resolve the validity of the conclusions of the PBS &J Report before going too far..." Again, let's make sure we state what we want. 5.- In the next paragraph of the cover memo it twice mentions that different items can be interpreted differently by different readers. Such comments are totally unacceptable, as we are then already admitting that certain problems exist and we do not want to define them at this time. Let's not leave ANY door open for the CZM to interpret words or phrases to suit his ends. 6.- "Ultimately we will decide as a group which responders we will recommend in what order, and which are unacceptable on any basis." What happens if we can not agree with the CZM on a name to conduct the Peer Review? It will then most likely go to the CAC or the BCC who will have to side with the CZM — and he will have the final say — we lose! 7.- Yes, time is running out — but the CZM keeps inserting language which we have already rejected in the past — wear us down until we accept is his policy. I think we would welcome the County to take the PBS &J Report to the FDEP — the FDEP would be snowed under with letters from us, the Conservancy et al. If the County sends the letter to the FDEP, the County will end up with a very bad black mark on their face. Let's not be pressured with such meaningless "threats" by the CZM. 8.- Nowhere do I see a clear definition in the opening paragraphs of the area to be covered. Later on there is some reference to the NRPA — but the area must be defined clearly. Are there not better definitions available? 1 of 2 8/4/2010 8:17 AM by LR 9.- On the actual Peer Review — Page one, 4th paragraph insert "October 2009" PBS &J report evaluation. Also the last sentence remove "that includes" and substitute with "of'. 16 11 B19 , 10.- Under the first paragraph of "Considerations" I would change the opening sentence to: "The water quality expertise that is required to perform a Peer Review of the October 2009 PBS &J Report ......... standards for the Clam Bay estuary system as defined herein ". 1 L- Top of page two — eliminate the first sentence — because the CZM refers to the "estuary management program" — perhaps we would like to have the FDEP establish solutions for the "estuary"! 12.- the next paragraph starts with "2." — where and what is "1". 13.- item "5." Not "that" but "than ". Then leave out "water quality" 14.- Item "6." — Who will determine the methodology to come up with a "total composite score ". Incidentally there is no "item one above ". 15.- In item "T' — I would like to balance out the people who will act as an evaluation committee, by adding the President of the Mangrove Action Group and a representative from the Conservancy — each of whom have more "in hand" experience than the others. These are some thought I have. This process has been going on for many months. It appears every time we come up with a draft, the CZM re- inserts items which we have indicated are not acceptable to us. Let's send a final document — not a draft — to the CAC and CZM — a non - negotiable document — not a "guideline ". If they do not accept it we can forward the Peer Reviews we already have in hand — together with the October 2009 PBS &J report to the FDEP — together with a copy of our final document. 2 of 2 8/4/2010 8:17 AM by LR August 4, 2010 - 6b (revised 8/3/10) Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Community Improvement Plan Priorities Re: Comments on CIP Summary Worksheets 1611 B19 Date: 7/26/2010 From: Keith Dallas Attached are worksheets summarizing the priorities selected by each PBSD Board member, as well as a total average priority scores. There are two sets of sheets: • The first set shows the results in the order the items were on the original sheets. • The second set ranks the items from highest priority (lowest average priority score) to lowest priority (highest average priority score). • The second sheet also shows the accumulative probable cost for all items with that or a higher priority. The raw selections made by individuals have been modified to make each person's selection process consistent with all other members' selections, as follows: • To the extent that individuals used the same priority number twice, we have renumbered to use each priority number only once (giving the higher priority to the first duplicate number seen on the original sheet). • To the extent that items were left blank, we assumed they were the lowest priority, again assigning numbers in the order each item is seen on the original sheet. • One individual set priorities for items designated "Foundation ", so we removed those selections from the sheet and renumbered the remainder of "PBSD" items accordingly. Some other modifications were made to improve the understandability of the results: • Where alternative choices were available, we combined the basic and each alternative results to obtain a single average priority score (for example, see item D1 -F at bottom of first page). • Probable Cost on item DI-D middle of first page were increased to include prorata share of Contingency and Design /Permit Fee costs. • Items that the original sheets showed as "per ramp" have been changed to show total probable cost (item D2 -A: we went back to the report to use the number that reflected the number of expected ramps). It is my hope that these two sets of Summary Sheets will be used as follows: • By the Budget Committee to begin the process of thinking what these priorities will mean to future PBSD budgets, and how the PBSD should approach implementing at least some of these projects over the years. Page 1 of 8 08/03/2010 at 3:03 PM August 4 20116 eviL 110) 9 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Community Improvement Plan Priorities • For each of us to study and to think if we would change any of our priorities after seeing this more total picture. • As the starting point of a special PBSD meeting to review these priorities and decide where we go from here. • By the author of the first draft of an executive summary that will be attached to the Wilson Miller report and describe the tentative priorities that have been developed by the PBSD and the Strategic Planning Committee for their respective areas. There is a lot here to digest. Happy reading. We will discuss at our August 4th meeting when we should schedule a special meeting to review these priority sheets. Page 2 of 8 08/03/2010 at 3:03 PM 1611 819 I/ BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 5, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board held a meeting on Thursday, August 5 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 John Chandler absent John Iaizzo absent Keith J. Dallas Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill Mary McCaughtry Kyle Lukasz Lisa Resnick AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Audience Participation 3. Capital Financing Update 4. Community Improvement Plan Project Priorities Discussion 5. Audience Comments 6. Adjourn ROLL CALL With the exception of Mr. Chandler and Mr. laizzo, all Budget Subcommittee members were present. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION No discussion CAPITAL FINANCING UPDATE Mr. Dorrill reported that the County recommended that Pelican Bay, being a credit - worthy community, should explore its own commercial funding, however they are prepared to assist the Services Division if needed. He believes the terms would be over a period ten to twenty years at an interest rate of 4.75 — 5 %. Chairman Levy presented a self - financing option for the Community Improvement Plan project. To pay for new lights and existing poles on Gulf Park Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard, new lights and new poles in residential neighborhoods, and entrances at a cost of 52,023,000, they could raise the assessment for ad valorem street lighting by $202,000 yearly for ten years. He calculated an average escalation cost of $20,000 or 2% yearly. The current assessment millage rate for street lighting is .0531. Raising the millage by .0434 to .0965 for ten years could raise the amount needed. To complete the entire Community Improvement Plan minus the lighting they would need to raise an additional $381,000 yearly. The current non ad valorem assessment raises $2,824,000 yearly. The current assessment is $370 per unit and a revised assessment would be $420 per unit for ten years, an increase of 13.5 %. Chairman Levy said at some point, they would need to consider raising the assessment. Mr. Dallas asked if financing of lighting has to be from ad valorem tax. 1103 161181g i Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes August 5, 2010 based. Mr. Dorrill said no, but historically it was because other pre- existing street lighting programs were ad- valorem Mr. Dallas said when they recently replaced the poles financing came from capital or effectively from non ad- valorem. He said that lighting, although it is not a real high priority, they should deal with it within the next seven to ten years. They should start saving next year via self - funding or by financing, but be careful to have funds available in case of an emergency. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN PRIORITIES Ms. Ronnie Bellone said the Strategic Planning Committee met August 4 and discussed priorities by year: 2011, 2012, 2013, or to be determined. The Foundation is focusing on crosswalks to amenities however they would like to collaborate with the Services Division because they could jointly obtain contracts, permits, and split the costs appropriately. Traffic and safety are high priorities. Members discussed who is responsible for ADA compliance or stop signs on private property versus public property and the next Community Improvement Plan priorities document revision would differentiate between public and private property. They should consider whether upgrades are for basic compliance or window dressing improvements. Road right of ways are public property. Mr. Dorrill said the current economic climate is good for getting lower prices on construction projects. He would like to start lining up joint projects with the Foundation as early as September. meeting. Discussion of capital improvements prioritization and financing would continue at the September 2 at 1 p.m. special There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned. Michael Levy, Chairman 1104 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 9/2/2010 12:06:49 PM �. B 9FIala ° C C iVE >D. 16111 Haias ._.r. AUG 0 6 2010 Henning Coyle Board of County Commissioners COletta BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MEETING MINUTES JULY 8, 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 Thursday, July 8 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 John Chandler absent John Iaizzo absent Keith J. Dallas Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill Mary McCaughtry Kyle Lukasz Lisa Resnick AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Audience Participation 3. Community Improvement Plan Project Priorities Discussion 4. Audience Comments 5. Adjourn ROLL CALL Chairman Levy called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. With the exception of Mr. Chandler and Mr. Iaizzo, all members present and quorum established. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION No discussion COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT PRIORITIES DISCUSSION Mr. Dallas said once members have ranked Community Improvement Plan projects they should put them in order and calculate the cumulative dollar amount to find out whether they have enough money to fund the projects they desire to complete and look for alternative funding sources. Chairman Levy said they should consider raising the assessment. Mr. Gibson said if raising the assessment is what they decide, then they should do a demonstration project and communicate their plans with residents. Mr. Dorrill said he spoke with Mr. Mark Isackson, Chief Assistant County Manager and they are affiliated with the Florida Government Finance Corporation, a consortium of credit -worthy government entities. They have put together a $60 million Commercial Paper Program that provides them with funding for projects with terms of 25 years at 5% interest and should be available in September. He suggested the Board inform Mr. Leo Ochs, County Manager that the Services Division is interested in utilizing the Commercial Paper Program. Formally, the Services Division would present an executive summary to the Board of County Commissioners with intent to participate in the Commer #WqVfi&ogram. In �8te: 1101 Item #: J 16111` 819 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes July 8, 2010 addition, the Services Division should inform the community of the program and explain the rationale of borrowing money versus using available cash to protect and enhance property values. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Jerry Moffatt said to let the Board members know financing options are available before they rank the projects. He also suggested for uniformity, the Services Division make project decisions that coordinate with decisions made by the Foundation. ADJOURN Mr. Dallas made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to adjourn at 11:10 a.m. and the Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Michael Levy, Chairman ii 1102 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 7/23/2010 4:02:57 PM 161-19 1%ECEIVED PELICAN BAY SERVICES DMSION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES JUL 3 0 2010 JUNE 2, 2010 Board of County Commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session, June 2, 2010 at 1 p.m., at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive. The following members were presenWiala 1L Pelican Bay Services Division Board Halas _ C Keith J. Dallas, Chairman John laizzo Henning Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman Michael Levy Coyle John P. Chandler Theodore Raia, Jr. Coletta Tom Cravens John Baron absent Johan Domenic absent Hunter H. Hansen absent Geoffrey S. Gibson absent Pelican Bay Services Division Stan W. Neil Dorrill Lisa Resnick Kyle Lukasz absent Mary McCaughtry absent AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Approval 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. April 7, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop (Sunshine Law Presentation) b. April 13, 2010 Budget Subcommittee c. April 14, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Workshop d. April 19, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop (Peer Review) e. April 28, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Workshop (Peer Review, Reconvened) f. April 28, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Workshop g. May 5, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session h. May 18, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Workshop 4. Audience Participation 5. Administrator's Report a. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Update b. Governance Update c. Monthly Financial Report 6. Chairman's Report a. Peer Review of PBS&J Report Update b. Peer Review of Water Circulation Models Preliminary Discussion c. Community Improvement Plan Prioritization and Demonstration Project Discussion d. Announcements 7. Capital Projects 8. Community Issues a. Clam Bay Estuary System Channel Maintenance Permit Update 9. Committee Reports and/or Requests 10. Old Business 11. New Business a. Pelican Bay Foundation Smoking Ban Starting October 10, 2010 T. Cravens Misc. Corres: 12. Miscellaneous Correspondence a. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet Date: 13. Audience Comments 14. Adjournment Item #: ROLL CALL Copies to: Seven members present. Quorum established. Mr. Domenic, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Baron, and Mr. Hansen were absent. AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Cravats node a nwotion second by Mr. Clkandltr, to approve tke agenda as an oWed by Mr. Levy, combini rg items 6 c and 6 d, and under item 6 c� have a dhousim to consider doting a dmwnstradm pro Tll re aoard voted 7-0 to approve the xiiodmL 8379 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 161 1 June 2, 2010 1 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Mr. Levy amended the April 13 Budget Subcommittee minutes on page 1098 under the section, "Clam Bay Funding & Projections" to read, "Could Pelican Bay Services Division transfer..." and "...approximately S150K to spend, using approximately S80K from carryforward reserve." Vice Chairwoman Womble amended the April 14 Community Improvement Plan workshop minutes on page 100 under "The Commons" section to read, "...would not result in a significant loss of parking." Mr. Chandler amended page 100, moving the sentence, "Mr. Lukasz said he would contact the County's Transportation department..." to the preceding paragraph regarding installing RPM'S and striping at Gulf Park Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard. Mr. Chandler amended the April 28 reconvened peer review meeting minutes, page 8370, section "Additional Peer Reviews," removing the words, "...with enthusiasm..." Mr. Levy amended the May 5 regular session minutes, page 8377, "Audience Comments" section to read, "...the Fiscal Year 2011 proposed budget allocated one -third of healthcare costs to street lighting, dividing the cost between three funds." F50g) Trade a motion, second by Dr. Raia, to approve as presented, the meting mhuges of April 7(3a) w presentation; April 19 (3d7 peer review workshop; and April 28 (3p and May ld (3h) Community Plan workshops, and to approve as amended die meeting minim of April 13 (3b) Budget , April Id (3c) Community Improvement Piety April 28 (3e) reconvened peer review workshop; and session. The Board voted 7-0 to approve the motion. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ms. Marcia Cravens referred to the City of Naples reconsidering whether to lift the ban barring the use of copper sulfate. She alleges that copper sulfate is highly toxic. She asked if the Services Division uses it to treat water bodies in Pelican Bay, and if so, when, where, how much used over the past couple years and how they are testing for it. The Services Division should address any copper sulfate issues as soon as possible and offered Ms. Jennifer Hecker of the Conservancy's assistance. She alleged that the "peer review direction" document is a misrepresentation created by Coastal Zone management staff and not a product of the Clam Bay Estuary subcommittee as it states. Mr. Dorrill said copper sulfate is the least expensive and easiest method to use to treat algae blooms and he would be surprised if the Services Division is not using it. Mr. Lukasz could address Ms. Cravens' questions and provide report. He expressed interest in learning about alternatives. Mr. Cravens said the City of Naples banned the use of copper sulfate due to the high levels in Naples Bay. Now they are attempting to rescind that order and reestablish the use of copper sulfate into water bodies that do not drain into Naples Bay. The issue at hand is that the locations under consideration, Moorings and Venetian Bays could affect Clam Bay. 8380 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 1611`819 Jane 2, 2010 ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT_ DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL UPDATE Humiston and Moore prepared a proposal to apply for a permit with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Army Corp. of Engineers to close Clam Pass should Deepwater Horizon oil spill conditions warrant. The permit application requires Board of County Commissioners' approval and the Services Division would place it on the next Commission agenda The scope of work includes two alteratives to close the pass, the first with sand, the second with sheet pile. The cost is not to exceed $10,400. If the County were to default, the Foundation guarantees payment. If they can get on the June 8 Commissioners' agenda, the application would be ready to submit in approximately two weeks. Mr. Cravens asked what the potential problems are. Mr. Dorrill said the "unified central command" has been wavering in how they will address containing the oil, whether with booms, or sand, but is confident they would have a permit in hand ready when necessary. GOVERNANCE UPDATE The County Attorney engaged the firm of Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson as co- counsel to develop an independent district program for Pelican Bay. The Foundation retained counsel, the van Assenderp firm. A teleconference is on June I 1 with the County Attorney and Chairman Dallas to discuss a schedule and preliminary aspects of the "business deal" to explore developing a draft bill to bring to the Legislative Delegation session of 2011 at the earliest, or at the latest in 2012, and to hold a community workshop this fall. Mr. Levy asked if changing to an independent form of government would raise, lower or be tax neutral. Mr. Don ill said it is too early in the process, but believes taxes would increase slightly. Currently, they pay the County $150K in overhead charges, i.e., risk management and human resources services; as well as an existing ad valorem tax for other constitutional officers' services. They need to look at how they will continue services currently covered by overhead, i.e., insurance, and accounting services, as well as acknowledge how they would receive funds for County depreciable assets that they take over, i.e., maintaining roadways and other public works. The focus should be on being able to make independent decisions for major public works assets. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill said the general fund has approximately $1.8 million available with $5,700 in payables. The year to date is in line with the budget. Monthly expenses have been approximately $200K out of the $220K budgeted. They have received approximately $2.5 million in assessment revenue. Generally, the budget is in line with expectations. Mr. Chandler suggested they format the budget as a twelve month or calendar budget and volunteered to assist. Mr. Lukasz has knowledge of Services Division spending, and could review the budget line -by -line and make notations. 8381 ' R. Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 161 B June 2, 2010 Mr. Levy said on page 4 of the monthly financial report under non - operating revenue and expenditures, there is reserves of S 140K and suggested putting this under "revenue reserves" because the amount is going to negate what is shown under operating revenues for special assessments of water management and right of way beautification at the top of page 2. It would show the total variance and describe better what this number really means, that people pay the assessment early to take advantage of the discount. Mr. Dorrill said that he would apply suggestions to the July statement. Mr. Cravens nwde a eiodon second by Mr. Levy to accept the May 2010 mantkly jinand d report hW tke record Tke Board voted 7-0 to approve tike nwdon. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT PEER REVIEW OF PBS&J REPORT UPDATE Chairman Dallas apologized and referred to the "Peer review direction as approved by the Clam Bay subcommittee of the Coastal Advisory Committee at the May 20 meeting" he received from Mr. McAlpin. He had wanted the Board to review the document prior to the meeting however, the County's email system malfunctioned and prevented this. He suggested the Board respond to Mr. McAlpin. Member concerns included the June 15 deadline to have a "proposal on the street," the Clam Bay Estuary boundaries, the refocusing of the review to emphasize water quality, the Impaired Waters Rule or IWR, Total Maximum Daily Loads or TMDL, and the impacts and standards for dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll, and that a water quality expert perform the peer review. Members understood this project to be a peer review of the PBS&J report, so the "direction" was confusing. Ms. Kathy Worley agreed. She said a peer review of the PBS&J report would be comprehensive to include water quality, benthic, topographic, tidal data measurements and sediment analyses. She disagrees with the PBS&J report findings for many reasons including methods used to collect data, take measurements, and calibrate equipment. A peer review of this report is important because in the first phase, PBS&J collected current tidal measurements that they plan to use to calibrate their model in the next phase. She does not have confidence in the data and believes it does not provide a solid base. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection or FDEP reviews water quality data in STORET regardless, to determine impaired waters and make TMDL recommendations. In October 2009, Clam Bay was listed impaired for mercury levels alone, due to fish, and is typical in this region. A comprehensive peer review of the PBS&J report be done otherwise it does not give the whole picture. Mr. Chandler said the statement that has impact is that they propose to take the Services Division scope of work and add back in the "stipulation that water quality expertise will be the primary qualification in selecting a peer review professional for this portion of work." 8382 1611 B19 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes Juoe 2, 2010 Vice Chairwoman Womble referred to the statement that Chairman Dallas would work with Mr. McAlpin to develop a request for proposals with Purchasing. She suggested that Chairman Dallas work with his counterpart, Mr. Tony Pires, Chairman of the Clam Bay Estuary subcommittee, not Mr. McAlpin who is staff. Mr. Cravens agreed and suggested they include Mr. Pires in the working group. Ms. Linda Roth endorsed Ms. Worley's argument and urged the Services Division to clarify the scope of work is a comprehensive review of the PBS&J report, and no emphasis placed solely on water quality. She submitted her comments. Mr. Cravens suggested the Services Division's response state that this Board does not accept the "stipulation that water quality expertise will be the primary qualification in selecting a peer review professional." Vice Chairwoman Womble said a peer review of the report is just that and Mr. McAlpin is asking for a review of only one section of the report. Dr. Raia cited the Florida protocol used to determine impaired waters and said they should proceed with caution. Mr. Cravens pointed out that the Clam Bay Estuary subcommittee was not supportive of the FDEP evaluating the PBS&J report to determine if the conclusions are valid. Ms. Worley agreed, adding that FDEP evaluates the data in STORET regardless. Mr. Hall confirmed current Services Division Clam Bay water quality data is eligible, but not entered into STORET. Mr. Chandler reviewed the subcommittee's recommendations. The Board concurred with merging the lists of proposed consultants. The Board disagreed with revising the scope of work with the stipulation that water quality expertise as the primary qualification used to select a peer review professional. The Board suggested adding counterparts to the working group to determine the request for proposals to include Mr. Dorrill and Mr. Pires. Lastly, the Board determined that June 15 is not a feasible deadline, but they would work to conclude as timely as possible. Mr. Moffatt referred to the purchasing policy and compared the peer review professional selection process similar to the process they used to hire Mr. Dorrill. Ms. Worley said in order to get a non - biased peer review they should not interact with the peer reviewer. They could provide reference material, but be wary of direction to get a desired result. Mmade a Hatton second by Mr. laizzo for tht Pelican Bay Services Division Board to onse to the Coastal Advisory CommWee Clam Bay Subconsnittee's recom nendations for the ew. The Board concurred that doe Pelican Bay Services Division list of proposed peer sionals should merge with Coastal Zone Management's list of proposed peer review The Board voted 7-0 to the motion. Mr. :voted made a motion second by Mr. Iafw that the peer review of the PBS&J report and histoa should be a conWrekensive peer review and the scope not focus on the won that wate arperfise be the primary qualification used to stied a peer review professional, The Boar-0 to rove the Haddon. 8383 W. . Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 1 6 I ,j, B 19 Pelican Bay Services egu g June 2.2010 E ravens made a madam second by Mr. Chandler that the workgroup to develop the request for sals docament should include Mr. Dorrd4 Mr. Dallas, Mr. Pins, Mr. McAlpin and a entative from the Purchasing depanwwnt, and upon comletion the document be provided to Board or ravak Tike Board voted 7-0 ro approve the notion. Mr. Cravens made a motion second by Mr. Chandler dkat June 15 is not a practical deadlinte" for this = to be coniplete and a proposal on the street " The Board voted 7-0 to ve the motion. PEER REVIEW OF WATER CIRCULATION MODELS PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION Because the Services Division Board proposal for a peer review was focused on the PBS&J report and historical data, at the May 20 Coastal Advisory Committee Clam Bay Estuary subcommittee meeting, Chairman Dallas was asked by Mr. McAlpin whether the Services Division would consider doing a peer review of a water circulation modeling study. The Board addressed this and several other issues in their May 6 letter to Mr. McAlpin. The letter states that the Services Division cannot make a commitment to perform a second peer review of a water circulation modeling study prior to completing an initial peer review of the PBS&J report and historical data. Ms. Worley clarified that a peer review of the PBS&J report considers water circulation, but that a modeling study, although related, is a separate report. Coastal Zone Management would base a modeling study on data collected for the PBS&J report. If the data is suspect, it will not produce an accurate model, hence the importance of performing an initial peer review of the original PBS&J report and historical data There was no motion made. Board consensus was that Coastal Zone Management would likely move forward with a modeling study regardless, however the Board should voice their concerns in writing "peer to peer," from Chairman. Dallas to the Coastal Advisory Committee Chairman Sorey, and copy Clam Bay Estuary subcommittee Chairman Pires, County Manager, Mr. Ochs, and Mr. McAlpin. The Board had several concerns. The Clam Bay Estuary subcommittee defined the geographic area of the Clam Bay Estuary to extend to Doctor's Pass, which is inaccurate. They stressed the importance of performing an initial peer review of the PBS&J report ad historical data prior to developing a water circulation model because the PBS&J report's data is suspect, been criticized as being bogus, and without validation, they might produce a poor water circulation model. The Board wanted to question Mr. McAlpin as to how he planned to improve the water quality in the Clam Bay Estuary as they defined it, extending to Doctor's Pass without harming Clam Bay as the Services Division defines it. Lastly, the Services Division does not rule out performing a peer review of a water circulation modeling study in the future, however at this time cannot commit, prior to completion of an initial peer review of the PBS&J report and historical data. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN PRIORITIZATION & DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Chairman Dallas said Wilson Miller's part in Community Improvement Plan project is wrapping up and the next step will be for the Services Division Board to set priorities for projects that it is responsible. The Foundation would do the same 8384 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 separately. The Board then plans to write a summary describing projects, costs, and proposed timeline for implementation. This summary will provide the basis for a special issue of the Pelican Bay Post and present proposed plans to the community. This is just a preliminary step, and no decisions made until a public meeting, discussion, and vote. The Foundation is revising the Community Improvement Plan project list with estimated costs and show which entity is responsible. Some projects are mutual. Once received, Chairman Dallas requested members number projects in order of importance and the Board meet and give an idea of what they are thinking as a group. Mr. Chandler attempted to send an email to Ms. Resnick that she did not receive. It contained a spreadsheet with the methodology dealing with rankings. After they receive the revised project list and members rank them individually, then Ms. Resnick could revise the spreadsheet with each member's rankings and based on individual responses, they would be able to determine Board consensus as to which project is number one, number two, and so forth. He suggested they show the cumulative cost, as well, i.e., if first project costs $200K and second project costs $300K, the cumulative total is $500K. Chairman Dallas said the priority list document would give residents a general idea of who is responsible for what projects, and the cost, as well as priorities. Once they receive the revised project list, members would rank projects and they would review at a special meeting. Estimated timeline is four to six weeks. Mr. Iaizzo was concerned with how they would receive community feedback. He suggested a mailing with identified improvements and costs, asking residents for a response. Mr. Levy suggested they consider a demonstration project, such as bollard lighting and crosswalk at St. Raphael, and widen pathways, install LED lighting, new poles with arms, and landscaping at the North tram station. They could share the cost with the Foundation. The community would then have something to see. Mr. Chandler suggested using Wilson Miller's drawings in Pelican Bay Post, rather than do demonstration project. Chairman Dallas suggested they complete the project list and determine priorities first, and then they could decide what the next step is. Once he receives it, he will distribute. Mr. Moffatt said they should also include the objective for the project, i.e., safety. Regarding the demonstration project, Wilson Miller has identified projects that tie everything together. Chairman Dallas said the next Services Division meeting is July 7. He cancelled the June 8 budget subcommittee meeting and scheduled the next meeting for July 8. The Coastal Advisory Committee meets June 10, Clam Bay Estuary Subcommittee meets, and the Foundation Board meets June 25 at 8:30 am. CAPITAL PROJECTS None 8385 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes 1611 B 19 June 2, 2010 COMMUNITY ISSUES CLAM BAY ESTUARY SYSTEM CHANNEL MAINTENANCE PERMIT UPDATE Mr. Dorrill did not have authorization to sign the Clam Bay channel maintenance permit application and that it required the Board of County Commissioners' Chairman signature. Once the Services Division receives the permit, they would be able to address the channels that Mr. Hall determined needed maintenance. Mr. Cravens said Ms. Worley and the Conservancy would soon begin a benthic study of Clam Bay. The Mangrove Action Group, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association, and Foundation are funding the project. NEW BUSINESS PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION SMOKING BAN STARTING OCTOBER 10, 2010 Mr. Cravens said the Foundation passed a smoking ban to be enforced on all Foundation owned property, including bars, restaurants, beaches, and buildings to begin on October 10, 2010. It will not be enforced on non - Foundation property. Mr. Moffatt suggested designating a section for smokers on the beach. Mr. Cravens said the Foundation is offering smoking cessation training for staff employees. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE ONGOING PROJECTS STATUS SHEET No discussion. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None 1 f1;7►1u I �1�Y d k1l I') , t4t , �L) � 't Keith as, ChahAan Minutes by Lisa Resnick 6/14/2010 10 31.00 AM 8386 1611 Henning- AUG RECEIVED 0 6 2010 Coyle - PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION NCM* t� UTE Eloard of County Commissioners WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in regular session Wednesday, July 7, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, located at 8960 Hammock Oak Drive with the following members present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Geoffrey S. Gibson Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman John Iaizzo John P. Chandler absent Michael Levy Tom Cravens Theodore Raia, Jr. absent Johan Domenie John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill Mary McCaughtry Kyle Lukasz Lisa Resnick AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Approval 3. Collier County Sheriff's Request for Funds to Purchase Two Jet Skis for Emergency Response in Clain Bay (add on) 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. May 26, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Workshop b. June 2, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5. Audience Participation 6. Administrator's Report a. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Update b. Governance Update c. Monthly Financial Report 7. Chairman's Report a. Peer Review of PBS &J Report Update b. Community Improvement Plan Priorities c. Management Contract Review d. Announcements 8. Community Issues 9. Committee Reports and /or Requests 10. Old Business 11. New Business a. Vegetation Overgrowth (T. Cravens add on) 12. Miscellaneous Correspondence a. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet 13. Audience Comments 14. Adjourn ROLL CALL With the exception of Mr. Baron, Mr. Chandler, and Dr. Raia, all Board members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL Chairman Dallas added agenda item three to allow the Collier County Sheriff's office to request funding to purchase two jet skis for emergency response in Clam Bay; and he would include discussing suggestions distributed by Mr. Cravens for the Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work when they discuss the Chairman's Report, Peer Review of PBS&J update. Mr. Cravens added discussion of vegetation overgrowth along Pelican Bay Boulevard that is obscuring existing street lighting, and overgrowth along the west side of the berm under new business. SC. 1;orre8: ate:. 8387 em 'Aim %b: loll {B19 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes July 7, 2010 Vice Chairwoman Womble announced that it was Mrs. Cora Obley's birthday. Mr. Cravens announced that it was also his birthday, as well as Mr. Coleman Connell's birthday. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to approve the agenda as amended. The Board voted unanimo us* in avor o the motion. �J COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S REQUEST FOR FUNDS TO PURCHASE TWO JET SKIS FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE IN CLAM BAY Sergeant Jake Walker and Corporal Carmine Marceno of the Collier County Sheriff's North Naples Community Policing substation requested $23,000 to purchase two jet skis and trailers to respond to medical calls along the beach, suspicious boaters, and suspicious incidents and people in general to provide efficient patrol and emergency response and rescue services within inaccessible areas of Clam Bay. Law enforcement best management practice asserts that two watercraft should operate in tandem. The Board postponed further discussion until August 4. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Chairman Dallas and Vice Chairwoman Womble noted Scrivener's errors for correction. The title of the May 26 minutes, page 105 should read "workshop" not "regular session." The June 2 meeting minutes, page 8381 should read, "... general fund has approximately..." Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to approve the May 26 and June 2 meeting minutes as amended. The Board voted unanimously in favor o the motion. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Ms. Marcia Cravens submitted a document with suggestions for the peer review. She said the June 25 governance memorandum is inconsistent with observations made at public meetings. She is concerned and questioned the intent and benefit of Pelican Bay of becoming an independent district if they could lose control over Clam Bay. Mr. Dorrill said he does not believe the County will give up ownership or decision making authority of any conservation areas, including Clam Bay. Regarding the Administrator's contract, Ms. Cravens said that the Board should consider cutting administrative costs because there are less administrative responsibilities in Clam Bay currently. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL UPDATE Mr. Dorrill reported that an application for an emergency permit to close Clam Pass is complete and in a position to be filed with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in the event of a declared emergency where oil or byproducts might pose a threat to the coastline. The application requires Board of County Commission Chairman or his designee's signature, therefore, when an emergency declared, the application would channel through accelerated procedures and submitted. As there is :S 1611.619 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes July 7, 2010 sufficient sand forward of the dune line, sand will be used as the fill material. There was some discussion about how closing Clam Pass would affect the health of the mangroves. Mr. Hall said if the Pass is closed, the health of the mangroves is dependent upon the weather. GOVERNANCE UPDATE Mr. Dorrill reported that the Pelican Bay Foundation has taken the lead to explore the possibility of Pelican Bay becoming an independent district. They will examine the business points of the deal to define which assets and under what terms and conditions are those assets the independent district should acquire, i.e., roadways, water management facilities, the twelve -acre operations site, and neighborhood parks. Mr. Gibson noted that they should consider it a priority to produce more reclaimed water for the community. To allow proper vetting of the idea of independence, the consensus is that a draft bill could go before the Legislative Delegation during the 2012 Legislative Session at the earliest. Mr. Cravens made motion, second by Mr. Domenie that Pelican Bay Services Division Chairman Dallas is included in the Pelican Bay Foundation's ad -hoc governance committee. The Board voted unanimous! y in favor of the motion. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported that the third quarter financials are "looking extremely good." They received a $13,000 reimbursement from the County for selling surplus property. Tree trimming is over budget, however overall they are under budget and he estimates finishing the year under budget by $100,000. Mr. Hansen said they should itemize the line item "other operating supplies" under "right of way beautification" that is over budget by 50 %. Mr. Lukasz said "other operating supplies" includes miscellaneous supplies and equipment, but that he would review it. Mr. Dorrill added there might be some items there that are misclassified. Mr. Cravens said he sees Services Division vehicles running when not occupied and Mr. Dorrill said to report such incidents to the office to deal with as they occur. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Hansen to accept the June, 2010 monthly financial report as presented. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT PEER REVIEW OF PBS &J REPORT UPDATE Chairman Dallas summarized the current revised peer review scope of work document and proposed evaluation process. Mr. Levy expressed concern that the current document does not clearly state that the goal is to perform a peer review of the PBS &J report only, and the geographical definition of Clam Bay is expanded to include Doctor's Pass. The document infers that the Pelican Bay Services Division is working continuously with the County on the Clam Bay Estuary. The peer review should MM 16111 B19 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes July 7, 2010 be limited to what was originally proposed and what the Commissioners approved. Mr. Cravens agreed. Consensus was that this Board has already addressed these concerns and they appeared to be back at square one. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Hansen to accept the Chairman's peer review scope of work as presented. Chairman Dallas called a question on the motion and the Board voted unanimously in opposition of the motion. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenie to amend first paragraph of the peer review scope of work document to read, "During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved an independent peer review of the October, 2009 PBS &J Clam Bay Estuary Data Collection & Analysis final report. " The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to amend the second paragraph of the peer review scope of work document bv striking, "... or national estuaiy program. " The Board voted unanimous! v in favor of the motion. Chairman Dallas reviewed the draft letter to Chairman Sorey of the Coastal Advisory Committee with the Services Division's concerns regarding the Clan Bay Estuary modeling study. Of concern was how the Clam Bay Estuary was defined geographically, as well as an ever - expanding scope. Mr. Gibson said they should address these issues in the letter. Vice Chairwoman Womble suggested they use the Board of County Commissioners' approved language from April 22, 2008 and December 15, 2009. Board members were instructed to return their peer review scope of work suggestions and concerns regarding the Clam Bay Estuary modeling study to Ms. Resnick by July 19 to approve a new draft document at the August 4 meeting, and agenda packets were scheduled to be available July 26. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN PRIORITIES Chairman Dallas reviewed the Community Improvement Plan priorities form. Four members responded. Members challenged the methodology and the Board consensus was to rank all items one through infinity and do not reuse the same number twice. The Board was instructed to complete and return to Ms. Resnick by July 19. The responses would be entered and mean calculated with cumulative dollar amount. MANAGEMENT CONTRACT REVIEW Mr. Gibson made a motion, second by Mr. Iaizzo to increase Mr. Dorrill's minimum compensated hours from six hours to eight hours weekly thereby increasing his compensation by $1,580 per month. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas said members should be mindful of the Sunshine Law. He suggested that if members wish to comment on an email, to send comments to Ms. Resnick and she would provide to all members at the next public meeting. July 8 at 10:30 a.m. the Budget committee will meet to discuss how to approach prioritizing community improvement plan projects and alternative financing options. The Clam Bay subcommittee meets July 15. The Foundation does not meet in July. L.M612 Z61 B19 1 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes July 7, 2010 COMMUNITY ISSUES The Clam Bay channel maintenance permit application is in process. The Army Corp. of Engineers submitted a request for additional information to Mr. Hall that appears to be routine. An update would be provided at the August 4 meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS /REQUESTS No discussion OLD BUSINESS No discussion NEW BUSINESS Mr. Cravens said tree growth is obscuring street lighting on Pelican Bay Boulevard and suggested the Services Division address the issue by trimming or removing trees. Mr. Dorrill said tree removal permits would probably have to be obtained. Mr. Lukasz said the Services Division has pruned trees identified as obscuring street lighting in the Wilson Miller report. He would provide his recommendations with costs at the August 4 meeting. Mr. Cravens said there is overgrown vegetation along the west side of the berm and suggested the Services Division trim. Mr. Hall said they do not need a permit to trim the area because it is part of the maintenance of the water management system and Mr. Lukasz said he would address it. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE No discussion AUDIENCE COMMENTS No discussion ADJOURN Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenie to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Keith J. bMas, Chair4i 8391 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 7/22/2010 9:34:00 AM 16 I1 1 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 2010 B10� LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in regular session Wednesday, July 7, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, located at 8960 Hammock Oak Drive with the following members present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Geoffrey S. Gibson Mary Anne Womble, Vice Chairwoman John Iaizzo John P. Chandler absent Michael Levy Tom Cravens Theodore Raia, Jr. absent Johan Domenie John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Doff ill Mary McCaughtry Kyle Lukasz Lisa Resnick AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Approval 3. Collier County Sheriff's Request for Funds to Purchase Two Jet Skis for Emergency Response in Clam Bay (add on) 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. May 26, 2010 Community Improvement Plan Workshop b. June 2, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5. Audience Participation 6. Administrator's Report a. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Update b. Governance Update c. Monthly Financial Report 7. Chairman's Report a. Peer Review of PBS &J Report Update b. Community Improvement Plan Priorities c. Management Contract Review d. Announcements 8. Community Issues 9. Committee Reports and /or Requests 10. Old Business 11. New Business a. Vegetation Overgrowth (T. Cravens add on) 12. Miscellaneous Correspondence a. Ongoing Projects Status Sheet 13. Audience Comments 14. Adjourn ROLL CALL With the exception of Mr. Baron, Mr. Chandler, and Dr. Raia, all Board members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL Chairman Dallas added agenda item three to allow the Collier County Sheriff's office to request funding to purchase two jet skis for emergency response in Clam Bay; and he would include discussing suggestions distributed by Mr. Cravens for the Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work when they discuss the Chairman's Report, Peer Review of PBS &J update. Mr. Cravens added discussion of vegetation overgrowth along Pelican Bay Boulevard that is obscuring existing street lighting, and overgrowth along the west side of the berm under new business. 161U W 619 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes Julv 7, 2010 Vice Chairwoman Womble announced that it was Mrs. Cora Obley's birthday. Mr. Cravens announced that it was also his birthday, as well as Mr. Coleman Connell's birthday. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Gibson to approve the agenda as amended. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S REQUEST FOR FUNDS TO PURCHASE TWO JET SKIS FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE IN CLAM BAY Sergeant Jake Walker and Corporal Carmine Marceno of the Collier County Sheriffs North Naples Community Policing substation requested $23,000 to purchase two jet skis and trailers to respond to medical calls along the beach, suspicious boaters, and suspicious incidents and people in general to provide efficient patrol and emergency response and rescue services within inaccessible areas of Clam Bay. Law enforcement best management practice asserts that two watercraft should operate in tandem. The Board postponed further discussion until August 4. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Chairman Dallas and Vice Chairwoman Womble noted Scrivener's errors for correction. The title of the May 26 minutes, page 105 should read "workshop" not "regular session." The June 2 meeting minutes, page 8381 should read, "... general fund has approximately..." Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to approve the May 26 and June 2 meeting minutes as amended The Board voted unanimous) in favor o the motion. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Ms. Marcia Cravens submitted a document with suggestions for the peer review. She said the June 25 governance memorandum is inconsistent with observations made at public meetings. She is concerned and questioned the intent and benefit of Pelican Bay of becoming an independent district if they could lose control over Clam Bay. Mr. Dorrill said he does not believe the County will give up ownership or decision making authority of any conservation areas, including Clam Bay. Regarding the Administrator's contract, Ms. Cravens said that the Board should consider cutting administrative costs because there are less administrative responsibilities in Clam Bay currently. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL UPDATE Mr. Dorrill reported that an application for an emergency permit to close Clam Pass is complete and in a position to be filed with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in the event of a declared emergency where oil or byproducts might pose a threat to the coastline. The application requires Board of County Commission Chairman or his designee's signature, therefore, when an emergency declared, the application would channel through accelerated procedures and submitted. As there is EM 1611 B19 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes July 7, 2010 sufficient sand forward of the dune line, sand will be used as the fill material. There was some discussion about how closing Clam Pass would affect the health of the mangroves'. Mr. Hall said if the Pass is closed, the health of the mangroves is dependent upon the weather. GOVERNANCE UPDATE Mr. Dorrill reported that the Pelican Bay Foundation has taken the lead to explore the possibility of Pelican Bay becoming an independent district. They will examine the business points of the deal to define which assets and under what terms and conditions are those assets the independent district should acquire, i.e., roadways, water management facilities, the twelve -acre operations site, and neighborhood parks. Mr. Gibson noted that they should consider it a priority to produce more reclaimed water for the community. To allow proper vetting of the idea of independence, the consensus is that a draft bill could go before the Legislative Delegation during the 2012 Legislative Session at the earliest. Mr. Cravens made motion, second by Mr. Domenie that Pelican Bay Services Division Chairman Dallas is included in the Pelican Bay Foundation's ad -hoc governance committee. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported that the third quarter financials are "looking extremely good." They received a $13,000 reimbursement from the County for selling surplus property. Tree trimming is over budget, however overall they are under budget and he estimates finishing the year under budget by $100,000. Mr. Hansen said they should itemize the line item "other operating supplies" under "right of way beautification" that is over budget by 50 %. Mr. Lukasz said "other operating supplies" includes miscellaneous supplies and equipment, but that he would review it. Mr. Dorrill added there might be some items there. that are misclassified. Mr. Cravens said he sees Services Division vehicles running when not occupied and Mr. Dorrill said to report such incidents to the office to deal with as they occur. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Hansen to accept the June, 2010 monthly financial report as presented. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT PEER REVIEW OF PBS &J REPORT UPDATE Chairman Dallas summarized the current revised peer review scope of work document and proposed evaluation process. Mr. Levy expressed concern that the current document does not clearly state that the goal is to perform a peer review of the PBSU report only, and the geographical definition of Clam Bay is expanded to include Doctor's Pass. The document infers that the Pelican Bay Services Division is working continuously with the County on the Clam Bay Estuary. The peer review should :• 161.1 819 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes Julv 7, 2010 be limited to what was originally proposed and what the Commissioners approved. Mr. Cravens agreed. Consensus was that this Board has already addressed these concerns and they appeared to be back at square one. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Hansen to accept the Chairman's peer review scope of work as presented. Chairman Dallas called a question on the motion and the Board voted unanimously in opposition of the motion. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenie to amend first paragraph of the peer review scope of work document to read, "During their regular December 15, 2009 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved an independent peer review of the October, 2009 PBS &J Clam Bay Estuary Data Collection & Analysis enal report. " The Board voted unanimous! v in favor of the motion. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to amend the second paragraph of the peer review scope of work document by striking, "... or national estuary program." The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Chairman Dallas reviewed the draft letter to Chairman Sorey of the Coastal Advisory Committee with the Services Division's concerns regarding the Clan Bay Estuary modeling study. Of concern was how the Clam Bay Estuary was defined geographically, as well as an ever - expanding scope. Mr. Gibson said they should address these issues in the letter. Vice Chairwoman Womble suggested they use the Board of County Commissioners' approved language from April 22, 2008 and December 15, 2009. Board members were instructed to return their peer review scope of work suggestions and concerns regarding the Clam Bay Estuary modeling study to Ms. Resnick by July 19 to approve a new draft document at the August 4 meeting, and agenda packets were scheduled to be available July 26. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN PRIORITIES Chairman Dallas reviewed the Community Improvement Plan priorities form. Four members responded. Members challenged the methodology and the Board consensus was to rank all items one through infinity and do not reuse the same number twice. The Board was instructed to complete and return to Ms. Resnick by July 19. The responses would be entered and mean calculated with cumulative dollar amount. MANAGEMENT CONTRACT REVIEW Mr. Gibson made a motion, second by Mr. laizzo to increase Mr. Dorrill's minimum compensated hours from six hours to eight hours weekly thereby increasing his compensation by $1,580 per month. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas said members should be mindful of the Sunshine Law. He suggested that if members wish to comment on an email, to send comments to Ms. Resnick and she would provide to all members at the next public meeting. July 8 at 10:30 a.m. the Budget committee will meet to discuss how to approach prioritizing community improvement plan projects and alternative financing options. The Clam Bay subcommittee meets July 15. The Foundation does not meet in July. •1 1611 819 ' Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Meeting Minutes Julv 7, 2010 COMMUNITY ISSUES The Clam Bay channel maintenance permit application is in process. The Army Corp. of Engineers submitted a request for additional information to Mr. Hall that appears to be routine. An update would be provided at the August 4 meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS /REQUESTS No discussion OLD BUSINESS No discussion NEW BUSINESS Mr. Cravens said tree growth is obscuring street lighting on Pelican Bay Boulevard and suggested the Services Division address the issue by trimming or removing trees. Mr. Dorrill said tree removal permits would probably have to be obtained. Mr. Lukasz said the Services Division has pruned trees identified as obscuring street lighting in the Wilson Miller report. He would provide his recommendations with costs at the August 4 meeting. Mr. Cravens said there is overgrown vegetation along the west side of the berm and suggested the Services Division trim. Mr. Hall said they do not need a permit to trim the area because it is part of the maintenance of the water management system and Mr. Lukasz said he would address it. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE No discussion AUDIENCE COMMENTS No discussion ADJOURN Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Domenie to adjourn.11 The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Keith J. a as, Chair 8391 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 7/22/2010 9:34:00 AM July 7, 2010 - Pelican Bay Services Division Regular Session Agenda Item 5- Administrator's Report b- Governance Update Page 1 of 6 161 iB19 To: Board of Directors, Pelican Bay Foundation From: Bill Carpenter, Bob Uek, Mike Coyne, Henry Price, Jim Hoppensteadt, and Steve Feldhaus Date: June 25, 2010 Re: County Request to Consider Formation of Independent District within Pelican Bay Fred Coyle, Chairman of the Collier County Board of Commissioners, and Leo Ochs, Collier County Manager, have proposed that Pelican Bay considerthe formation of an independent district to replace the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD), which is the Advisory Board for the Pelican Bay Municipal Services Taxing & Benefit Unit (MSTBU), which would also be replaced. Bill Carpenter, Chairperson of the Foundation, asked Vice Chairpersons Bob Uek and Mike Coyne, former Board member and Legal Committee member Henry Price, Foundation President Jim Hoppensteadt, and Foundation Secretary. Steve Feldhaus to join with him to conduct an initial analysis of the proposal and to report back to the Board. Steve Feldhaus made an initial verbal report to the Board at its May Board meeting, and this report is designed to bring the Board up to date on the efforts and recommendation of this Ad Hoc Committee. For ease of reference, the proposed independent district is referred to as the PBID, for Pelican Bay independent District. - What has occurred to date? • Fred Coyle and Leo Ochs proposed the formation of the PBID. • Foundation Chairperson Bill Carpenter formed an Ad Hoc Committee to evaluate the proposal and make a recommendation to the Foundation Board. • The Ad Hoc Committee hired Ken van Assenderp, an attorney in Tallahassee who is one of Florida's most respected experts in the field of special districts. He also was involved in the formation of the original Pelican Bay Independent District in the 1970s. • The Ad Hoc Committee had a number of meetings and conducted research on independent districts in Florida. • Steve Feldhaus and Jim Hoppensteadt, as representatives of the Ad Hoc Committee, met on June 11 with County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow, PBSD Chairman Keith Dallas, and PBSD Administrator Neil Dorrill, to discuss the multiple issues involved with the possible formation of the PBID. • The Ad Hoc Committee prepared and authorized the release to the Board of this interim report. What would the purpose of the PBID be? The PBID would be a single purpose district, designed to maintain the infrastructure of Pelican Bay. The other basic services currently being provided by the County — fresh and effluent water, sewer, waste, schools, libraries, enforcement of building codes, police, fire, and emergency services — would continue to be provided by Collier County using Collier County infrastructure and would continue to be paid for with ad- valorem tax dollars levied by the County against Pelican Bay property. June 25, 2010 Memorandum to Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors RE: County Request to Consider formation of Independent District within Pelican Bay 0613012010 130 PM July 7, 2010 -Pelican Bay services Division Regular Session Agenda Item 5-Administrators Report b- Governance Update Paget of 6 1611 B19 What is involved in the process of creating the PBID? • There are a lot of moving parts, involving the County, our legislative delegation, and our members. • We would have to reach agreement with the County on the powers of the PBID and precisely what assets and liabilities would be transferred into it. • We would have to obtain the support of our legislative delegation for legislation to create the PBID. • We would have to obtain the support of a majority of registered voters. There is no actual requirement for such a straw vote, but as a practical matter our legislative delegation would not support the legislation unless they are sure that they are following the will of the electorate. A straw vote could be held prior to any legislation being introduced in Tallahassee, or the legislation could be drafted to be subject to a favorable election after passage of the legislation. • We would probably also want to take the pulse of our membership on the issue, perhaps via a vote at an Annual Meeting of Pelican Bay members. This would ensure that all members, and not just registered voters, have an opportunity to have their voices heard on this important issue. What are the pluses and minuses of the PBID? Pluses: • We would be able to elect our own governing Board, without the need for the results to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and without vacancies being filled by the BCC. • The governing Board of the PBID would be able to make decisions regarding the matters within its jurisdiction without needing the approval of the BCC. We would no longer be under the budget control of the County. • A locally controlled PBID Board may be able to provide services, systems, and facilities to Pelican Bay more cost efficiently, and at a higher quality, than the County has been able to provide. • Generally, the PBID would fund its operations on the same basis as the MSTBU, that is, it would levy non ad- valorem assessments, on a unit basis. The Board of the PBID would also have the power to levy ad- valorem taxes to carry out special functions (that could also be a minus —see below). That power can be limited in the legislation to require, for example, the prior approval of the voters before any ad- valorem tax can be levied. • Depending upon what concessions we are able to obtain from the County, we may be able to obtain title to all the property that was owned by the original PBID when it was taken over by the County in 1990, with the exception of the wells, water treatment facilities, etc, as well as the assets currently being used by the PBSD in Pelican Bay. This could include the 12 acre parcel by the golf course. It could also include all the easements that the original PBID obtained from WCI, such as the easement to construct and maintain the berm. Presumably, we would also obtain title to the roads and the right of ways on each side of the road, as well as the real estate at each entrance to Pelican Bay where our signage is currently located, since this is now owned by the County. It is even possible to speculate that we might be able to deal with Clam Bay issues in connection with our negotiations with the County over the formation of the PBID. We may even be able to resolve the issue of the County Ordinance regarding non - potable water. June 25, 2010 Memorandum to Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors RE. County Request to Consider Formation of independent District within Pelican Bay 0613012010 130 PM July 7, 2010 -Pelican Bay Services Division Regular Session Agenda Item 1611 dmy+itrtor' � port b- Governance Update Page 3 of 6 g 19. We would also expect that the several million dollar capital surplus in the MSTBU would be transferred to the PBID. We would be in control of the roads of Pelican Bay. Presumably, that would make it more difficult for the County to do things like open up Crayton Road at Seagate, which has been previously proposed. We would also be able to resurface our roads more regularly than the County has been willing to do. We may be able to include powers in the PBID that would assist us in our efforts to control what we are calling redevelopment in Pelican Bay. We also can include powers in PBID legislation to make possible joint efforts that would not be possible for individual members or individual condominium associations to achieve. As an example, the PBID could issue bonds to finance individual installation of solar panels. The PBID could then assess individual owners or condominium associations who wish to participate for the amounts advanced to them, with the assessments being paid over 25 years out of electricity cost savings. The assessments would be used to repay the bonds. End result: a community with green, low cost solar electricity generation built at no net cost to its members. Minuses • BCC Chairman Fred Coyle has indicated that he is pursuing this proposal out of a belief that there is no reason for the County to be involved in the delivery of the services, systems, and facilities that Pelican Bay residents tax themselves to pay for (via the MSTBU). However, it is also likely that the formation of the PBID would involve the PBID taking on some responsibilities, such as maintaining the roads of Pelican Bay, that are not currently the responsibility of the PBSD. It is thus possible that it could cost us more to operate the PBID than we are currently taxing ourselves via the MSTBU to pay for the operation of the PBSD. How much more the cost would be needs to be determined, and we also need to determine whether we can negotiate a "rebate" of some of the taxes we pay to the County in order to reduce the costs we would be assuming. • The PBID would have the power to levy non -ad- valorem assessments, just as are currently levied under the MSTBU. The county would also have the power to levy ad- valorem taxes on our property, but these taxes could only be to fulfill the purpose of the PBID, which would be to maintain the infrastructure of Pelican Bay. We can (and should) limit this power in the PBID's governing documents by requiring the approval of the electorate before such taxes can be levied. • We would have to be a bit more careful than we perhaps are now in segregating what the PBID does with respect to its property and what it does with respect to Foundation property. There should be no net change in cost, but if, for example, the PBID undertakes to maintain the Foundation's parks, it would seem that the Foundation would have to pay for that service. • The possibility exists that a future Board of the PBID could see the world differently than a future Board of the Foundation. We now have that problem with the County with respect to Clam Bay, but the County generally leaves us alone to manage our own affairs otherwise. A strong PBID Board with a vision contrary to the vision of a Foundation Board could create problems for our community. • We would need to determine the type of Board we would want for the PBID. We will want to examine carefully what checks and balances can be put into the legislation to ensure that the Board members exercise their responsibilities wisely. June 25, 2010 Memorandum to Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors RE; County Request to Consider Formation of Independent District within Pelican Bay 0613012010 130 PM July 7, 2010 - Pelican Bay Services Division Regular Session Agenda item S- Administrator's Report k- Governance Update Page 4 of 6 16 f'819 We would need to be certain that all liabilities associated with any employees Who might be transferred to the PBID, such as pension obligations, are adequately funded by the County. The bottom line seems to be that there are clear pluses, but that the extent of those pluses needs to be determined in negotiations with the County, and in understanding what powers the PBID can have, and that at the same time there are clear minuses, in particular any extra costs that we would be assuming, as well as the potential forfuture taxation, which again would need to be determined in negotiations with the County and in our structuring of the PBID. What next steps the Foundation should take? At our.meeting on June 11, we asked County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow what assets and liabilities the County contemplated transferring to the PBID and what powers it envisioned for the PBID. Mr. Klatzkow stated that the County is desirous of providing Pelican Bay with the independence that Pelican Bay has been seeking, and that it would be more appropriate for Pelican Bay to tell the County what it wishes for the PBID. Accordingly, we recommend that the Board authorize the Ad Hoc Committee to evaluate what services, systems, and facilities might be desirable for inclusion in the PBID, and what the cost of each might be, as well to evaluate what powers the PBID should have and any other considerations that should be taken into account. We break these down into three general categories as follows: 1. The functions currently being performed by the PBSD, as well as road maintenance. The possible transfer of the land owned by the original PBID to the PBID, as well as the possible resolution of Clam Bay issues and the non - potable water issue. The potential for the PBID to be able to undertake joint efforts, such as the installation of clean energy devices, which would not be possible for individual owners or condominium associations to achieve. • We recommend that the Foundation establish an informational and educational campaign for both our members and the larger community on the possible conversion of the PBSD and the MSTBU into the PBID. • We recommend that beginning this Fall the Foundation schedule a number of community workshops on this issue in order to obtain input from our members. • We anticipate that contacts with the County will be ongoing throughout this process, and that subsequent reports will be made to the Foundation Board and to the community about this project. • We recommend that the Ad Hoc Committee be expanded to include the President of the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association. We believe that the Ad Hoc Committee should remain small but that it would be desirable to have a representative of our larger community on the Committee. What the timetable might be? June 25, 2010 Memorandum to Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors RE. County Request to Consider Formation of Independent District within Pelican Bay 0613012010 130 PM July 7, 2010 -Pelican Bay Services Division Regular Session Agenda Item 5- Administrator's Report b -Gov mo%%��e Update Page 5 of � � i 16 1 B o We believe that this evaluation should proceed in a careful and deliberative manner, and that consideration by our community should take. place during the upcoming Fall and Winter seasons. • If progress is made on this project, and the Foundation Board decides that it would like to proceed to a next step, we would advise that the Fojunoation'� mer)3beyft be asked to vote on this issue at the 2011 Annual Meeting. • Depending upon the outcome of that vote, the Foundation Board can decide how and whether it wishes to proceed. The earliest that the legislation could be introduced in Tallahassee would be the 2012 Session. What will the fiscal implications of this process be for the Foundation both for this year and for subsequent years? • If the Foundation Board decides to continue to pursue this, which we recommend, the Foundation will incur costs for Ken van Assenderp and for Dolly Roberts, who will assist us on our educational and informational campaign. We believe that these hourly costs will be relatively modest, in the range of $15,000 for this fiscal year, with perhaps slightly more costs being incurred next fiscal year to reach a decision point on going forward or not. • If the Foundation decides to proceed with legislation, our very rough and preliminary estimate is that the Foundation will wind up spending perhaps up to $150,000 between the point a decision is made to pursue legislation and the formation of the PBID, if the legislation is successfully passed. We will need to refine that estimate as we go forward. • It should be possible for the Foundation to recoup a substantial portion of these costs from the PBID if we do go forward and the legislation is successfully passed. • We also need to determine whether there will be any increased costs to the Foundation going forward in operating with the PBID as opposed to operating with the PBSD and the MSTBU. That will require a careful analysis of how the Foundation is currently operating with the PBSD and MSTBU and. how it will be allowed to operate with the PBID. What would the fiscal implications of the PBID be for our members? We need to determine what the bottom line will be for our members with respect to assessments from the PBID, as opposed to their current assessments with respect to the MSTBU, both as the outset of the PBID and potentially for future years. This will obviously depend on the outcome of any negotiations with the County. We will need to have a very clear and firm handle on what the potential for PBID assessments and taxation in future years might be, and what procedures we can put in place to control the power to tax. What reactions should be expected from our members and how should we plan to deal with them? • We believe that our members will want to know what this is going to cost them, now and potentially in the future. As indicated above under fiscal implications, we will need to have a firm handle on this issue. June 25, 2010 Memorandum to Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors RE: County Request to Consider Formation of Independent District within Pelican Bay 0613012010 1:30 PM July 7, 2010 - Pelican Bay Services Division Regular Session Agenda Item 5- Administrator's Report b- Governance pdote Page 6 66 11 B 19 o Many in our community will view this as "incorporation light." We need to appreciate that and be prepared to address the concerns that are inherent in that viewpoint. In that regard, we note that we have been advised that communities that form an independent district rarely progress to incorporation. Thus, a decision to form the PBID should practically be viewed as effectively precluding incorporation. Why isn't the PBSD Board handling this? The PBSD Board, which is elected by our members, nonetheless reports to and is responsible to the BCC. We anticipate that we will receive a great deal of cooperation from the PBSD Board members, and from Neil Dorrill, and that we should work closely with all of them. However, they are subject to Florida Sunshine laws, and we will need to ensure that we retain the confidentiality of our internal deliberations and determinations as we negotiate with the County over these matters. June 25, 2010 Memorandum to Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors RE: County Request to Consider Founation of Independent District within Pelican Bay 06 13012010 130 PM CwTOd Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Currant Assets Total Assets Curmit liabilities AccountgYrade Payable Accrued Wages Payable Goods Recelved /Inventory Recv`d Total Uabilitles Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balenoe Total UabNkles and Fund Balance Monthly Financial Report Month - Ending June 1010 Pelican Bay Servkm Munkipai Services TaxftUrsit Balance Sheet - June 30, 2010 Operating Fund 109 (Unaudked) 1,672,382.66 1611 B19 July 7, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda Item 5- Administrator's Reports- Monthly Financial Report $ 1,672,382.66 $ 1,672,382.66 Uabllltles and Fund Balance $ (18,466.75) (8,483.39) (1,715,639.09) 70,206.57 $ (26,950.14) (1.645,432.52) $ (1,672.382.66) Pope 1 of 11 07/06/201012:08 PM lj.� July 7 . 210Pete Bay Sery Is Dv R91"Session Agenda item 5- Administrator's Reports- Monthly Financial Report Pelkan Say Services Muddilld Services Taft Udt Income statement W/ Swat - June 3% M0 Op, ra1' @ Feud 109 (Unardtadl Carryforward Special Assessment - Water Management Administration Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification Charges for Services Surplus Property Sala Interest Total Opersd Revemres Water Management Admb* Payroll Expense White Goods IT Direct C IMM Support Indirect Cost Reimbursement 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 Administradon Gperatirg Water Management Rdd Operedons Payroll Expense Engineering Fees Flood Control Water Mgmt. Flood Control Replanting Program Interdepartmental Payment Plan Review Few Other Contrwtural 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 Clothins and Uniforms (10,000.00) for equipment reserves $ 742,500.00 $ 715,217.91 $ (27,282.09) 1,922,500.00 1,851,952.08 (70,54792) 1,500.00 - (11500.00) 13,043.00 13,043.00 40,500.00 1Q,506.18 (29,993.82) 2,197,000.00 2,9!01719.17 (116r21110 i3) S 44,0.00 $ 31,827A8 $ 12,67252 18,300.00 - S 18,300.00 4,100.00 3,075.00 :4025.00 117,600.00 117,600.00 - 16,600.00 16XAG-W - 21,300 -0 10,575.00 10,725.00 4,100.00 2,058.70 2,041.30 3,000.00 47.85 2,952.15 - 1,081.40 (11081A0) 13,4MW 11,160.44 2,239.56 1,300.00 975.00 325.00 2,300.00 250.00 2,050.00 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 2,000.00 - 2,000-0 4,26L57 2,157.82 2,103.75 2,981.20 (2,9BL20) 1,100.00 379.231,100.00 379.23 720. 255,11157 ZM769.1Z 55,09.2.45 148,600.00 110,501.04 38,098.96 12.000.00 - 12,000.00 14,000.00 2,468.00 11,532.00 81500.00 1075.00 6,525.00 21,100.00 11,891.00 9,209.00 1,500.00 - 11500.00 11000.00 - 1,000.00 42,400.0 32,756.50 9,643.50 500.00 325.80 174.20 - 272.00 (272 -0) 813mw 5,728.32 2,571.68 - 47.60 (47.60) 2,600.00 11950.00 650.00 1600.00 2,700.00 900.00 4,500.00 2,696.47 1,3.53 2,000.00 4,237.38 (2,23738) 27,600.00 181060.00 9,540.00 11900.00 3,867A8 (1,967 48) Monthly Rnancial Report Month - Ending June 2010 Page 2 of 11 07/06/201012:08 PM Personal Safety Equipment Fertilizer and Herbicides Other Repairs and Maintenance Other Opolltint Supplies Total Water Martapamwd Hold Operations Operating Right of Way 8eautUlention Payroll Expense White Goods IT Direct Client Support Telephone Postage Rent Buildings and Equipment Insurance - General Storage Rental Printing, Binding and Copyhng Clerk's Recording Advertising Office Supplies General Training and Education Tod Right of Way seautiftcadon Oprating Right of Way SpufiRudlon - Fidd Payroll Expense White Goods Flood Control Pest Control Other Contractural Services Temporary tabor 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 8MAISMa = - Field Operating Tod Operath Expernditurm JU420 n rBt dlg$Oard Regular Session Age it dm! t�gMthly Flnancfai Report 500.00 - 500.00 98,40000 SWL42 41,348.58 1,500.00 9,323.00 (7,823.00) 2,500.00 3,58292 (1,08292) 4013.000.08 2686933.fiE< 134.O6iA7 45,600.00 32,545.88 13,054.12 16,900.00 - 16,900.00 4,200.00 3,150.00 11050.00 28,000.00 12,527.00 15,473.00 3,900,40 2,058.70 1,84LW 3,000.00 22.00 2,978.00 13,800.00 11,480.73 2,31922 500-00 375.00 125.00 - 466.80 (466.80) 2,600.00 - 2,600.00 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 4,774.26 2,404.35 2,36991 1,500 00 - 1,500.00 123,77426 65.101111"1 63,743.75 806,70000 5641055.89 242,644.11 3,300.00 - 31300.00 13Q400.00 107,137.22 23,262.78 6,500.00 - 6,500.00 29,500.00 28,026.44 1,47356 211,800.00 134,142.58 77,657.42 47,100.00 642.87 (642.87) 3,800.00 2,359.15 11440.85 24,900.00 11,086.24 13,813.76 3,400.00 11900.05 1x499.95 8,500.00 2,988.39 5,511.61 80000 216.00 58400 12,200.00 91150.00 3,050.00 91300.00 6,975.00 2,325.00 29,400.00 19,426.15 9,973.85 47,100.00 25,107.41 21,992.59 800.00 339.78 460.22 25,000.00 31,095.00 (6,095.00) 12,000.00 3,440.99 81559.01 3A00.00 1,34L71 1,658.29 581500.00 51,370L50 7,12950 60,200.00 43,24535 16,954.65 30,00000 13,495.60 16,504A0 1,500.00 - 1,500.00. 3,000.00 530.00 2,470.00 3,000.00 4,324.14 (1.324.14) 11,500.00 17,846.47 (6,346.47) 456.7.0'7 2,323.735.83 1.674,976AS 708.759.34 Monthly Finandol Report Month - Ending June 2010 Page 3 of 11 07/06/201012.08 PM Celta awarldlumm Water Mmompment Adnirdstradan Other Machinery and Equipment Total Weber ManaRerrrart Administration Capital Water Manager mrt Reid Operations General Improvements Total Water MMraprrrent Reid Operations Capital Not of Way ammudketion Other Machinery and Equipment Total ftht of Wait 11"Wiflo adon Capital Right of Way gaawkwilon - Reid Building Improvements Autos and Trudy Other Machinery and Equipmeny Total Rldrt of Way OeeutlRprtlon - Rald Capita Total Capital Eapendh wes Total Erwas waft PIrow(LOSS) Non4)perabirrg Revenues and (Exerrdltures)% Tax C,oOector fees Property Appraiser fees Revenue Reserve Total "w4lperating Rmrr mes and Experrdibures, net Net Prof fiLow) Jul 26 IL Se 4W690ard Regular Session A der Item 5 Administra eportt- Manddy Financial Report gel► 1,000.00 430.45 56955 11000.00 430.45 569.55 13,200.00 1,370A7 11,82953 13,200.00 1,370.47 11,329.53 11000.00 - 1,000.00 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 13,600.00 6,863.00 6,737.00 26,000.00 25x162.00 538.00 24,000.00 18,217.34 5,782.66 63,600.00 13.067.66 78, ROM 52,343.26 26,456.74 2, 402,535.83 1,667,319.75 735,216.09 294AM17 923,9!!.42 sum (82,50000) (51,343.33) 31,156.67 (75,200.00) (40,519.86) 34,680.14 (U0,000.00) - 1400MW (297,700A0) (91.863.19) 206AMM ) 831,531.23 SK772M Monthly Financial Report Month - Ending tune 2010 Page 4 of 11 071061201012:08 PM July 7, 2010 pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda Rem S- Administrator's Report-c- Monthly Financial Report Pelican Bay Services B19 Municipal ServicesTaxing Und 6 Balance Sheet - June 30, 2010 Street Lighting Fund 778 Cash and Investments $ 256,274.84 Interest Receivable - Due from Tax Collector - Total CumE it Assets $ 256,274.84 Total Assets $ 256,274.84 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ (2,426.51) Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd (49.39) Accrued Wages Payable - Total Liabilities $ (2,475.90) Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved (314,193.43) Excess Revenue (ExParditurasi 60,394.49 Total Fund Balance (253,798.94) Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Monthly Financial Report Month - Ending June 2010 Page 5 of 11 071061201012.8 PM Operating Revenues: Carryforward Curent Ad Valorem Tax Interest Total Operating Revanuas Operating Estpendia Arm Street Lighting Administration Payroll Expense White Goods IT Direct Client Support Indirect Cost Reimbursement Other Contracturai Services Telephone Postage Rent Buildings and Equipment and Storage Insurance - General Storage Rental Office Supplies General Other Office and Operating Supplies July 7, 2010 pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda item S -Admyr ort c Monthly Financial Report PeNcen Bay Services rl, B 19 Municipal Services Tasting Unit . Income Statement w/ Budget - June 30, 2010 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Budget Acbrai Varisom (300.00) $ 285,700.00 $ 275,495.02 $ (10,204.98) 4,600.00 1,436.29 (3,163.71) 2900M o0 276,93132 (tea) $ 33,900.00 $ 23,836.70 $ 10,063.30 19,800.00 - $ 19,800.00 4,100.00 3,075.00 1,025.00 6,700.00 6,700.00 - 20,800.00 10,575.00 10,225.00 4,100.00 1,489.74 2,610.26 2,000.00 3.40 1,996.60 13,400.00 10,999.05 2,400.95 401100 300.00 100.00 - 29L75 (29L75) 500.00 1,76L57 (1,26L57) 1,000 00 - 1,000.00 Total Street Lighting Administration OperaNrp 106,700.00 59,032.21 47,667.79 Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense White Goods Travel Professional Development Telephone Electricity Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Other Equipment Repairs Personal Safety Equipment Electrical Cgintractors Light Bulb Ballast Total Street Lighting Field Operations Operad Monthly Financial Report Month - Ending June 2010 54,00000 38,81L81 15,188.19 14,500.00 - 14,500.00 2,752.81 (2,752.81) 2,300.00 162.90 2,137.10 44,20000 23,169.08 21,030.92 800.00 600.00 200.00 1110000 825.00 275.00 1,300.00 2,499.92 (1,199.92) 900.00 427.05 472.95 200.00 - 200.00 500.00 - 500.00 7,300.00 - 7,300.00 12400 00 6,859.77 5,540.23 139 -S00 W 7%108.34 63,39L66 Page 6 of 31 071061201012:08 PM Total Operating ExperMitureg Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Ad - Wh-iso - do - Other Machinery and Equipment Total Street Lightleg AdmiM@ratlo I Capkd Street Lighting Field Operad=S General Improvements Total Street Loft Field Operations Capital Total Capital Expenditures Total AN Expenditures Operaft Profft%(lLow) Non-Operatlng Revenues and (E Itures): Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Revenue Reserve Total N0*0pero ft Revenues and EqMaftv Net PWW(LOSS) July 7, 2010 Pelican Bay SerWces Division Board Regular Session Agenda Itqgfri- gOn)ni Repogggth Report 2A6,200.00 139,1110.55 111,059.46 1,000.00 443.49 556.51 1,1000.00 443.49- 556.51 13,200.00 8,232.00 4,968.00 13,20.00 8,232.00 4,968.00 14,ZQOAO 41675M S,524.S1 260,400.00 1"„i16.04 116,=36 29,600.00 133,135.27 103,515.27 (81800.00) (5,525.58) 3,274.42 (5.W00) (2,139.90) 4,660.10 (15,000.00) - 15,000.00 (29ANAM %AM48) 22.934.52 126AO.79 126,418.79 Monthly Financial Report Month - Ending June 2010 page 7 of 11 07/06/201012:08 PM 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 Lhddlties and Fund Balance July 7, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda Item S-A is oes Report -c- Monthly 1 Report 19 Pelican Bay Services I I B Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - June 30, 2010 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudked) $ 476,600.23 476,600.23 $ 476,600.23 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ (522.50) $ (522.50) (392,850.20) (82,705 -03) (1,045.00) (475,555.23) $ (476,600.23) Monthly Financial Report Month - Ending June 2010 Page 8 of 11 07/06/201012:06 PM July 7, 2010 Pelican Bay Services OWsion Board RegularSesslon Agenda Item S- Adminisdat vr's Report -c- Monthly Financial Report Pelican Bay Services n6 161 1 B19 Municipal Services Taxing U Income Statement w/ Budget - June 30, 2010 Clam Bay fund 320 (Unaudited) FY 2010 Budget Antral variance Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Special Assessment Fund 111 Interest Total Opereft Revenues Operating Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Engineering Fees Flood Control Other Contractural Services Post/Freight Other Equipment Repairs Minor Operating Other Operating Supplies Total Clem Bay Restoration Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Total Clam Bay Ecosystem Total Clam Bay Operating Expmftres Total Revenue/(Expenditures) Non - Operating Revenues and Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Revenue Reserve Reserve Total Non- Operaft Revenues and Eqmmdku Net Profitf(Loss) $ 350,900.00 $ (350,900.00) 102,400.00 98,444.44 (3,955.56) 102,400.00 35,000.00 (67,400.00) 20065 2,890.65 SS5,700A0 136,335A9 (419,344.91) $ 83,100.00 $ 14,038.75 $ 69,061.25 83,500.00 12,480.00 71,020.00 22.04 (22.04) 500.00 89.50 410.50 2,400.00 - 2,400.00 500.00 - 500.00 170,000AD 26,690:29 143,369.71 25,00000 22,900.00 2,100.00 350,000.00 - 350,000.00 315,00100 22,900.00 352,100.00 5451000AO 49,53029 495„469.71 1�►700A0 86y5N" 76,104.50 (3,200.00) (11961190) 1,231.10 (2,100.00) (1,535 -04) 564.96 (5,400.00) - 5,400.00 (10.70DA0 (3,50394) 7,196.06 83,300.56 83,300.56 Monthly Financial Report Month - Ending June 2010 Page 9 0 %11 1 0 710 612 01 0 12:08 PM Current Assets Cash and investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assns Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable Goods Received Inv. Received Total LiabIlides Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance July 7, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda Item 5 Adminisbatoes Reportt- Monthly Financial Report Peliean Bay Services 16 1 1 Municipal Services Taxing Unit B Balance Sheet- June 30, 2010 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudked) $ 2,001,538.83 Llabidoc and Fund Balance 452.36 (1,030,251.41) (971,729 -78) 2,001,538.83 $ 2,001,538.83 452.36 (2,001,99L19) $ (2,001,538.83) Monthly Financial Report Month - Ending June 2010 Page 10 of 21 071061201012:08 PM July 7, 2010 Pelican Boy Servkes DMslon Board RegularSesslon Agenda Item S- Admlr►lstrator's Report- o-Monthly Rnandal Report Pelican Bay Services 16 It ' B 19 Municipal Services Taxies Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - June 30, 2010 Capital Projects Fund 322 (U) FY 2010 Budget Actual variance Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Special Assessment Interest Total Operating Revemres Operating Expenditures: Irrigation & Landmping Engineering Fees Interdept. Payment Other Contractural Services Ucenses and Permits Total lrription a Landscaping Non- Operatins Revenm and (6q�endt esr Transfer from Fund 109 Transfer from Fund 778 Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Revenue Reserve Total Non4vaeft Revenues and aa Net Prof t%(Loss) $ 2,029,500.00 55,900.00 53,845.29 (2,054.71) 19,800.00 14,136.49 (5,663.51) 2,105,200.00 67,981.78 (1,718.22) $ 175,000.00 $ 25,437.80 $ 149,562.20 1,924,50000 155,624.43 1,768,875.57 237.85 (237.85) 2,0991500.00 183,300 1,91,31199.92 $ (902,000.00) $ (902,000.00) $ - (186,400.00) (186,400.00) $ - (1,700.00) (1,076.94) 623.06 (1110000) (837.97) 262.03 (2,900.00) - 2,900.00 0" NO 00 (1,033,40000) U-090-31"l) (1211% 633 71 3,700 (115,233.21) Monthly Financial Report Month - Ending June 2010 Page 11 of 11 071061201012:08 PM July 7, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda Item 6- Chairman's Report-a -Peer Review of PBSBJ Report Update Clam Bay Estuary 161 1 B19 Peer Review Scope of Work March 15, 2010 March 19, 2010 —Rev. 1 June 25, 2010 — Rev. 2 June 30, 2010 — Rev. 3 July 1, 2010 —Rev. 4 July 1, 2010 — Rev. 5 Background 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, the BCC authorized that a recognized expert perform an independent review of the Clam Bay System Data Collection and Analysis Report recently completed by PBS &J. To complete this analysis, a thorough review of all available water quality data including the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) historical water quality data is required. This expert, jointly selected by PBSD and Coastal Zone Management (CZM), will be from an academic, university, research institute or national estuary program and not directly involved with any consulting firm. Additionally, this individual will be independent without any material relationship with the PBSD, the Pelican Bay Foundation or Collier County government. The review of the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis Report is proposed to be conducted early in the development of the water flushing /circulation model. It is also recommended that the cost of this effort be split between the PBSD and CZM. Although the financial commitment from the PBSD is only for the report evaluation, the intent is to have the PBSD participate in Water Circulation /Flushing Modeling Program review along with any development of the management plan(s) that may be created that includes the Clam Bay NRPA. Consideration A thorough review of the PBS &J report should involve a number of critical sciences. Among others, these disciplines would involve water quality, marine biology, modeling /hydrology, geology, natural estuary/ecosystems and with respect to the proposed water flushing /circulation model program a comprehensive and through knowledge of water quality and Florida water quality standards /guidelines along with modeling, modeling data and collection methodologies. The water quality expertise that is required here is not just the review and analysis to state standards but also expertise with respect to the proactive development of our specific water quality standards for the Clam Bay estuary system and the establishment of our own multi -year estuary management program that will address critical water quality issues as opposed to having FDEP establish solutions. While other skill sets are important, the vast majority of the reviewer expertise needs to be focused in these discipline areas. Clam Bay Estuary Peer Review Scope of Work - July 1, 2010 -Rev. 5 Page 1 of 2 7/2/201010:27:55 AM B ca 6 Pe�•c�. .Sty K si 71vii Clam Bay Estuary 3.• 1%" #n �► Peer Review Scope of Work "010S Suggestions for improvements to the PBSD Draft Peer Review Scope of Work to more closely reflect the discussion and member comment at the PBSD June 2, 2010 meeting: Background .First paragraph - add "NRPA" to end of sentence, to read Clam Bay Estuary NRPA. Second paragraph, second sentence - remove water quality and replace with "historical ". The sentence would be stated ...review all available historical data. Second paragraph, third sentence - remove "or national estuary program ". Third paragraph - either remove everything after the second sentence, or change the third sentence as follows - remove "Although" and place a period after evaluation. Either end it there or add a fourth sentence to state - Only after the Peer Review of the PBSJ "Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis" is done, would PBSD consider participating in further Review on additional Clam Bay reports, or studies, The PBSD will not commit to any additional participation until this first Peer Review selection process for a reviewer is complete and the result of the Peer Review provided to the PBSD Board. Consideration First paragraph, second sentence - remove everything after natural estuary/ ecosystems, as it's redundant due to "water quality" already mentioned in the first sentence. The PBSD is not at this time committing to anything other than what is necessary for the Independent Peer Review of the Clam Bay Data Collection and Analysis report. Second paragraph - remove entire paragraph for reasons already stated. The PBSD reserves the ability to participate on further participation until after this Peer Review is done. Activities Second bullet- Add "accuracy and" to start of sentence. To state Accuracy and suffiency of the data collection efforts... Place a period after the word report. No excuses or allowances should be built into the Review for lack or failure of the report's sufficiency or accuracy. Third bullet - Add "accuracy and sufficiency of to start of sentence. To state Accuracy and Sufficiency Methodologies used... Fourth bullet - Add "Appropriatef" to start of sentence and add " recommendations, and summary that is attached to the report " at end of sentence. To state, 042 1611 B19' Appropriate findings, conclusion, recommendations and summary that is attached to the reps rt. Evaluation of Proposals First paragraph, first sentence - add "Already" to start of sentence and "by the PBSD and CMZ /CAC ". Add "and proposals" after credentials. Second sentence - remove entirely. Third sentence - add in conjunction with the PBSD Chairman and CAC Chairman approvals of the list containing those candidates being solicited by the Purchasing Department. Solicitations for RFP to each candidate will be recorded onto a log and the log provided to the PBSD and CZM /CAC. Item 1. - second sentence - add "Florida water quality standards /guidelines" and a period after natural estuary /ecosystems. Remove remainder of sentence. Item 2. - second sentence - place period after ecosystems and remove remainder of that sentence. Leave third sentence as is. Item 3. - Third sentence - add "full PBSD Board and Full CAC Board ", after jointly evaluated by... To read The six potential candidates will be jointly evaluated by the Full PBSD Board and Full CAC Board. Remove everything else after this sentence. submitted by Tom Cravens, for July 7, 2010 PBSD meeting -Z •.#. eq, July i, 2010 Mr. John Sorey III, Chairman Coastal Advisory Committee City of Naples 220 Gulfshore Blvd. N Naples, FL 34102 Mr. Anthony Pires, Chairman Clam Bay Subcommittee of CAC 209 Madison Drive Naples, FL 34108 RE: Concerns about Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study Dear Sirs: 1611 B19 The Pelican Bay Service Division Board is concerneJ that any as l um tions used in the proposed Clam Bay Estuary Modeling Study be t'ully vetted and only nahied after the dam Bay System Data Collection & Analysis Final Report completed in October 2009 by PBS &J has been properly peer reviewed in its entirety. The results of any modef ing are only a8 valid as the reliability of its input data. .��I �epbrt For instance, one of the. cninc�i isms f the PBS &J to date .has questioned the very limited and unreliable tidal data collected. within Clam Bass. the PBS&J Report concluded the data unreliable, and assumed it was similar to date collected in the Gulf yin much deeper water. We feel such extrapolated data should be carefully peer reviewed before it becomes the basis of the Modeling Study: ' IIU�i We encourageahat this :enll re process be carefullyvetted at each phase and the assumptions for P P future phases only be finalized after there: is general agreement among experts as to the reasonableness of the results of each prior phase. To do otherwise will only serve to cast doubt on the validity of the final- conclusions: Another concelrn of the Services ) ivisi I n is the way he Clam Bay Estuary has y y rY s been defined to inclu`&- bodies of water extending south to Doctor's Pass. Although definitions by themselves are probablynot important, we worry that somehow future projects to improve water quality in the greater. Clam Bay extending to Doctor's Pass might ultimately harm the water quality of Clam Bay as traditionally defined by the Services Division. We therefore urge that any actions initiated because of subsequent studies only be taken after careful consideration of the fragile nature of Clam Bay and the possibility of unintended consequences. Sincerely, Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Pelican Bay Services Division Board Cc: Leo Ochs Gary McAlpin ! $ ! $� �i )� e !� �} §� 2■ 1611 ■ @ ■ ! ■ 2 ! __ _ ■�__ ■� # ®e� e � | ! 2 - ® -®- k - - °©- ee - - - - - | a ! ! ■■ ■ @ ■� ■ ■�� ■■ � 2 -- _ � + ■■ ■��_- ■ § .. ............. . .. • ..... ........ 09 I | # § k RE ll ■ ■a■a; §a ;;!- ■.� ; &aI | ! | ! | | ! |! ,|`s a, !` s`.!! f! I � � ■ ■ � 2 � � ;f & & � | of �■ , | | �� | � ■k | ! �I MIT■.z ■ @ ■ k & ■ 2[ �! 2� �| �$ b| I� � !) ■■ §a \t 16 1 1 B19 $ ! , ! A ■ ■ A �a ■- ■a ■ ® ■ � ■ It ■ # ■a n k � a I - - - ■ a�� - ■ ■ ! § § § � § §�■ � § § § §� k $ - � - - -® - -- � s H Li $ . .. . . .. X1 34 .... ...... .. .... $ � $ $ @! @� �$ §# # ■# � � � | | $ 2 ! !■ ■■ ■■! || | �| | I | � � | | � | ■ | | CC !I | f i � • ! � �! !■ ' | 1I � | | | a. | ^ §, || ! | K & ! ) ! !| ! I$ )� �I �2 k! 2! 01611 ■ � ■ � 11111 ■ | s ! Jill n ■ ■ s Nat■ ■■1;11 ■ � � - ■■- � ■ka■ k 2 ! _ _ _ �_�■ ® ®■ ■■ � ! ■ ® ■ ■ ■ -_° -- $ x x x x x w x x x .XKx x K w x x ! � x . ! � � � � $ �2� # ##2 � ■� - =!#k -- � | | � � k I I � � -d d � •� ! � | § , ■ ! �! � �!� � | ��} ■ � |7 - k � ` � ■ £■ |! � { �$ � ■| � | � !f �� ! ■! |� | |� \ � \ | �| | £f | ■| ;| | k� f ! ! � � § � ■ | � ! ■ � ■ b Z O O s N W 4 0 EEE' ,g y3a g �l 4 E E� �E o oM C 1611 B19 4 r H rpp� s x O a L O • S a � V r � s � A A r • r I L a at x x 0 X x x ft x x x X x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x ttFFF8vv111 � C m S 8 OOp •� � O g b 6 g S aD S p� �i 8 N a n �T O O O m N G p 8 F Vp Op O O S 8 O O �O�yy p�p pOp CaCa £ gg a A E� a a w � � e M m jE e O F a E� � � 54 52! ' ° � 'S 6 � • we E $EE s 8 v s s s a �Y� sM ss ResnickL Subject: Dr. Raia's 6/15/10 email RE: Plan - - - -- Original Message---- - m: Keith Dallas [mailto:keithdallas @comcast.net] Gent: Monday, June 21, 2010 4:54 PM To: ResnickL Subject: Fwd: Plan Lisa, See that this is distributed to PBSD Board at the same time we show how everyone has set their priorities. It sounds as if Ted won't fill out the spreadsheet, so this will have to inform other Board members as to his thoughts. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: Theodore Raia <tedraia @yahoo.com> Date: June T5, 2010 9:37:50 PM EDT To: Keith Dallas <keithdallas @comcast.net> Subject: Plan Keith, As you know I am leaving early in the morning. Here are some suggestions for allocating our resources and establishing priorities. I think we all agree that safety issues should be addressed first. However when an area safety issue is addressed we should consider including all other proposed improvements to avoid needless duplication of efforts and inconvenience to the public. Bicycle lanes on Pelican Bay Blvd. and Gulf Park Drive. Repair Oakmont Path and allow bicycles with the following restrictions. a) No biking before 9:O0am b) Cyclists must dismount for pedestrians. 3. Create a narrow "Pedestrian Only" path along Oakmont Drive. Space is not adequate for a bike path or lane. 4. Uniform cross walks limited to intersections and high pedestrian traffic areas. 5. Sidewalk pathways should be widened to 10 feet where possible and begin in those areas with high pedestrian traffic. 6. Improve the Ridgewood - Pelican Bay Blvd. intersection. 7. Improve pedestrian traffic flow at tram stations especially at the Commons. 8. Repair and widen the berm where necessary. 9. Improve the Route 41 berm beginning in areas most threatened by intrusion and include maximum noise abatement engineering. 10. Lights installation should begin as soon as feasible. If just the lights and arms, can they be installed in house with a cherry picker? If we are considering new poles we can begin at the entrances and where we are improving intersections and crossings. 11. Landscaping should be included in all area projects and then followed to completion. I strongly recommend shade trees with high first branches that will shade our walkways and not obstruct the line of sight. This is for your information to be used as you deem appropriate at the meeting. Please do not respond. See you in August. Ted 1 of 1 7/22/2010 1:35 PM by LR July 7, 2010 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Agenda Item 6- Chairman's Report-c- Management Contract Review 1611 B19 roUP MEMO To: Keith Dallas, Chairman, Pelican Bay Services Division From: W. Neil Dorrill, Division Administrator RE: Division Management First Year Summary Date: June 3, 2010 During the course of the past year the following key areas were completed as part of the managers work plan or board direction: • Negotiated an innovative strategy to jointly develop a community improvement plan with the Foundation • Negotiated a resolution of the FY 2009 transfer of $111,000 from Collier County to the Division • Completed an interior renovation of the district administrative office at no cost to the district • Completed extensive tree pruning, lake bank restoration and crosswalk projects on time and within budget • Achieved a return of surplus property revenues for the past three years • Developed a white paper and suggested approach to explore a return to independent district status • Achieved Clam Bay water quality certification of employees and protocols • Resolved an employee termination and appeal • Established initial capital improvement finance alternatives 5672 Strand Court, Suite #1 - Naples, Florida 34110 • teL 239- 592 -9115 • fax 239- 594 -1422 Page 1 of 2 07/02/2010 9:39 AM O N 0 O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 N O O ` O O N N 0 0 O O O 0 A o o J w W 080 V W W O W a O a 0 ^ o D v d o ma ° M n ° o 0 o o °- °< o N a a F o a tm a m d K J 3 m m o < N< O C Ort .a< a M a O. N o '� m u O d a - F < ? ° N o .-. 3 C D w > o G o < ° n d < 9 a O = O a a ° O o O O S n o R� 3 3 z O z O z 0 z 0 z 0 z O 3 Z v o j z O" " O O o, x m \ �_ o c -n °. w\ -O o— O i J v 3 Z °< cot S v v° _ m w N _ —,9, w W Z t+ m V N O N a \ o v-^ o r t+ \` < o r a Ll ^ t+ ' ° a t+ a fD O oa p < G m n m m P: Z m m o 3 Z-x.,z a m = 3 o ° N o & c - 3n n o a m v , Fo ' 3 3 v — o a o 3 ,v o m ao ^ a F o -•; " M eN oa a �^ o z m m ohm S a — n 'o o. <, m e m o. p a o m a ,< •O w m <, D c o a o r 3 — o u 3 n F o o a o '• �' o 2 a o 3 ?_ Z m o a^c `^ N a a h m o ,�} n n ti x s �, < 3 o o a O F+ O N N N H n •a nn D o. oo o o Ro v x o a a °—' -' F 'o N o o: up °" — o F o ^ 'L a o m c >- m m o° a° N ^ 3 ° o. o o 2L F m o n a' n m =. m o S a �' a° w' o �- ^ ao l N Nao E o 3 �m'w 3a=, d a m w `•°• o 33 3 °�—' c A .-• °�' O m o w m .* n f3 n� °., a n M s o d 2 o'—�o, a co) o< m o--� °a 3 nm o3 a^ n o -io io m — s# m a N m 3 o Ro c 3 S w o 3 .a. o o m . .��- n a o n a a 3 m a a w o 5 a o f o R m a N= 'm a 3 3 0 °o < n° o o d£ N w' °, o o v 3 -2 m ° R� c a N -<" m .7 c c �' 'o. »� ° r N n g \ d o o �°�. °. c m .°. 3 �' m o °o N �' �' = a mmao ° �n m .vroa o -^ rTG ao N j m o i m•< m' m EL m. y Q > G d >> ? ° m w °—" < 'm m ' A W °< o• o o io m •2 > x• 5 0 R o fN m° fofb� 9 �` \ �'a D a'a .o u v a �� m w a a o < 3 o m .. O o o m t° w 6 o• 3 w n F S O Q o > J O' K •G w'm o O N N C A C m N\ nm ^ R -^ f^ n 3 o m S o 3 o N 3 3 0 z o- s o. 3 0 M n 9 c m °a - a m c° v o° w ^ o n o 'o < o= oO 3 0 m o- n °- n m a 3 f o .c.. o mv' 3° m o n h m o a '� °� 3 o n o° o^ 3 v c o a _. o a o o m o 3 a n v v s° '^ m» 0 3 3 m f2o °< i o m' m m 3 w z 9' -' 3 � n n w o m n e •- o o o m da^ ^\ o mNa io � m< o_o No r a m o O o o � v Ica No w O ° O_ o '81 N a a a° n° 3' a° ° o_ o n vmi o N. 9° m O G] o v w a M y ° a m w m o' a o o o a �' — 3 0 o o IS < 0 N S 9 y o 0 0 Ll. 3 o ml o w 3 Zv° -nv C n o W n . o m o \ °- m n - m m o - o o 3 — n 3 m o 3 m 0 3 m 0 3 m o o 3 3 m m o o 3 3 m m 0 0 3 3 m m o o 3 3 m m o 0 3 3 m m m A a1 O QQ 0. "S m� A rt H N rr 4) rF _ CA m m O rt 161W" B1 ResnIcK e Sub! RE:luly7 Board Meeting 1611 B19 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: John Chandler [mailto:jpcbac @comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 5:20 PM T--'John Baron ; 'Tom Cravens ; 'Keith Dallas; 'John Domenie ; 'Geoffrey Scott Gibson'; 'Hunter Hansen'; 'John Iaizzo; 'Mike y'; 'Theodore Raia; 'Mary Anne Womble' Cc: ResnickL Subject: July 7 Board Meeting I received my Board Meeting packet, today. Since I will not be at the meeting, I thought that I should make a few comments now. As I probably won't complete this email until after 5 PM and the Board Meeting is tomorrow, I am not routing it thru Lisa. Nevertheless, it is a one way communication. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Update I sincerely hope that we now have the permit in hand to close Clam Pass, if necessary Peer Review I like Revision # 5 and recommend its approval CIP Priorities After all Board Members have ranked the projects, I recommend the following: - Generate a new listing, putting the projects in priority sequence with a Mean Priority of 1.0 being the top ranked project -Add a "Cumulative Cost" column, following the Probable Cost column, so that one can readily see the total cost of doing the first five projects, first ten projects or all projects , -Agree upon the cutoff ranking below which projects should not be considered for funding. If the group collectively ranks a project very low, it's probably not worth doing. -Have the Budget Committee prepare an exhibit that would show how many projects can be completed with existing reserves, how many can be completed over a ten year time span with existing reserves and no tax increase and how many can be completed over a ten year time span with various tax increase assumptions. John Chandler PS -It was 93, today, 'in Alison. I'm starting to think of becoming a Naples Year Rounder. 1 of 1 7/7/2010 8:12 M.by LR P 611 B19 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1520 ROYAL PALM SQUARE BOULEVARD, SUITE 310 FORT MYERS, FL 33919 June 30, 2010 Jacksonville Regulatory Division South Permits Branch/ Fort Myers Section SAJ -1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. c/o Jeff Rogers (via email) 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples, FL 34104 Attention Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. cto Jeff Rogers: Reference is made to a permit application, submitted on behalf of Collier County - Pelican Bay Services Division, requesting authorization from the Department of the Army (DA) to conduct ecological restoration /maintenance activities within tidal Clam Bay. The project area is located in Sections 32 -33; Township 48S, Range 25E; and Sections 4 -5, 8 -9, 32 -33; Township 49S; Range 25E, Naples, Collier County, Florida. Your application to the Corps of Engineers has been assigned application number SAJ- 1996 -02789 and is being evaluated by Linda A. Elligott at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fort Myers Regulatory Office. Please refer to this application number in all correspondence with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding this project. The following describes information required by the Corps to proceed with review of your project: 1) Please provide contact information and mailing labels for all immediately- adjacent property owners (limiting contacts for multi - family properties to a common element contact); only owners of property which directly abuts the project area are required (i.e., not owners within a given radius). 2) Please provide site - access details including land -based directions from a major intersection /town center; include land -based directions to a public boat ramp and subsequent water -based directions to the project location. An interagency site visit may be required to evaluate aquatic resources in the project area. 3) Please state if the duration of the requested permit is for the Corps standard 5 -year timeframe, or if relevant, please request a different permit duration. Note: a permit extension may be requested if received within 30 days prior to any permit expiration date. 1617 B19 SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) CLAM BAY Eco- Restoration RAI 4) Please describe the existing conditions and justification to support the need for the proposed work; please describe the extent of blocked drainage and the basis and /or reference flow with respect to the stated 50% blockage threshold. 5) The submittal states that work would be performed on an "as needed basis following the same practices conducted within the Clam Bay system" during the previous 10 years; please describe the criteria and/or thresholds used to determine the need for periodic maintenance activities in the proposed work area; please identify the responsible party(s) associated with such determination(s). Please provide a reference Corp document that authorized the previously- conducted work; the Corps has identified documents in which the USFWS expressed concerns regarding the deposition of excavated materials into intertidal wetlands, specifically, mangrove habitat. 6) The submittal requests authorization to conduct "manual cleaning" of the interior channels to maintain design depths, and maintain a created network of small flushing channels ". Please define: a) the proposed methodology associated with "manual cleaning" and identify the design depths for discrete areas proposed for maintenance activities; b) the proposed disposition of materials (note: redeployment of excavated materials may constitute a discharge of fill under the Clean Water Act); additionally, in concert with the CWA 404(b) (1) guidelines, the applicant must demonstrate avoidance and minimization efforts with respect to aquatic resources; generally, discharge of fill to mangrove wetlands is not acceptable to the Corps without a compensatory mitigation plan to wholly account for the associated impacts. Please address these concerns. 7) Please provide plan sheets that are not aerial photos and depict the discrete proposed work areas; provide a summary table that defines the areal extent (acres /square -feet) of the proposed work areas. State if a target shoreline setback distance has been established. 8) Please provide the estimated volume (cubic yards) of materials to be removed, and total areal extent (acres /square feet) of the proposed work. 9) The submittal states that the work will improve the hydrodynamics of the Clam Bay system; please describe the extent of hydrodynamic improvements and /or water quality parameters that are anticipated to improve as a result of the proposed work — include data that describe past/current "impaired" conditions and quantify the anticipated improvements. 10) Please provide a narrative that addresses public interest review factors; the narrative should demonstrate that the project is clearly in the public interest (typical public interest review factors include: conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental 2 1611- egg SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) CLAM BAY Eco- Restoration RAI concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water quality, safety, and consideration of property ownership). 11) The submittal states that "all cut branches and trimming debris will be removed "; please describe the planned disposition of any these materials including the methodology and ultimate disposal site (e.g., barge - loaded /trucked to licensed disposal facility). As a point of information, please be aware that any planned upland disposal site "cannot support or is incapable of supporting" the scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) or Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corals coupen). 12) Please define any temporary impacts associated with the proposed work; please describe the nature and extent of all temporary impacts and state if the temporary impacts will be wholly addressed upon project completion. 13) Please define /quantify any proposed direct or secondary impacts to wetlands, mangroves and /or submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). Please provide dates /data from any bottom surveys /bathymetric mapping. 14) Please state the estimated duration of work (working days /weeks /months). 15) Please describe the range of water depths in the proposed work area(s) (tidal range from Mean Low Water to Mean High Water; not elevation datum). Define the anticipated changes in the areal extent of waters that are currently: a) 2 -15 inches in depth; and b) 0- 3 feet of depth, for consideration of Essential Fish Habitat/ESA issues. 16) Please state if the applicant is willing to comply with: Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions (NMFS 2006) and Standard Manatee Conditions for In -Water Work (FWS 2005) (see Corps web -site: http: / /www.saj.usace.army.mil/ regulatory/what/species /endangered.htm 17) Please complete /submit: a) Manatee Biological Evaluation form; and b) ESA Checklist for Section 7/ESA (attached). Please submit the requested information to Linda A. Elligott at the letterhead address within 21 days. Construction prior to U.S. Department of the Army authorization may constitute a violation of Federal laws and subject you to possible enforcement action including fines and /or removal of the structures. Receipt of permit(s) from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection may not obviate the requirement for obtaining a Department of the Army permit. 3 ,. Big 161, SAJ- 1996 -02789 (IP -LAE) CLAM BAY Eco- Restoration RAI If you have any questions regarding this letter or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact Linda A. Elligott at 239 - 334 -1975 Ext. 32. Copy:applicant Sincerely, Linda A. Elligott Project Manager rd 1611 B19 MANATEE BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION October 2008 The Corps has determined that your project has the potential to affect the endangered West Indian manatee. Therefore, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the Corps is required to seek consultation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the proposed project. In order to assist us in making our final effect determination, we need you to provide us with information for items 4 -8 below: 1. Description of the action considered: The proposed project consists of 2. Description of the specific areas that may be affected by the action (scope of analysis): a. The proposed "action area "' is determined to be all or a portion of reach(es) , based on the overall project purpose which is b. The project site is located within which regional management unit of the West Indian manatee? (circle response) (1) Atlantic (east coast of Florida from St. Mary's River south to Cape Sable in Monroe County, and the lower St. Johns River from its mouth south to Rice Creek in Putnam County) (2) Upper St. Johns River (Rice Creek in Putnam County south to State Road 528 in Orange and Brevard Counties) (3) Southwest Florida (west coast of Florida from Pasco County south to Cape Sable in Monroe County) (4) Northwest Florida (west coast of Florida from Hernando County north and west to the Perdido River in Escambia County) 3. Description of any designated critical habitat that may be affected by the action. The action may affect the endangered West Indian manatee, but not affect its critical habitat. 4. Description of the manner in which the action may affect the manatee or its critical habitat: a. Habitat. Check those that would apply to within 1 -mile of the project site and a brief description. 1 The "action area" is defined as the area to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action. Direct effects are those effects that are caused by or will result from the proposed action. Indirect effects are those effects that are later in time. 1611 B19 (1) Source of warm water input to the area? (2) Source of fresh water input to the area? (3) Does submerged or emergent aquatic vegetation or mangrove or algae occur within the footprint of the project and in the area of ingress- egress to the project site? If mangrove or emergent vegetation is present, provide a description, including type and location. For submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), a survey during the growing season is highly recommended. For SAV, excluding Johnson's seagrass, the growing season extends from June 1 to September 30. The growing season for Johnson's seagrass is from April 1 to August 31. For freshwater SAV, such as Vallisneria, the growing season varies by location. (4) Are existing depths greater than -3 feet mean low water or ordinary high water in the footprint of the project and the surrounding area? b. Proposed Facility (if existing facility, show proposed change). (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Length of shoreline associated with the proposed or existing facility Number of proposed slips (wet and dry) Number of existing (previously authorized wet and dry) slips Launching facilities: ramp , travel lift , other_ Number of parking spaces for launching facility Number of estimated launches per day c. Project Influence on Vessel Use Patterns. The project's facilities may affect vessel use patterns in the area by attracting transient traffic or causing modification of existing vessel navigation patterns. (1) Are there existing studies or reports that describe boating activities, vessel traffic, or compliance with speed zones in the action area? If yes, provide references as appropriate. (2) The proposed facility will provide the following services: (a) Permanent moorings (leased on an annual or monthly basis) for: commercial use (including fishing vessels, charter boats, rental boats, etc.). Number of slips non - commercial use (including privately -owned recreational boats). Number of slips (b) Transient moorings (leased or used on a daily basis) for: Temporary berths: Number of slips Type of use: Fuel Pump -out Other October 2008 161]�� B 19 (3) What is the estimated number of slips used for the following? (a) Used primarily for day trips (b) Used primarily for longer trips (c) Used primarily for dockside entertainment d. Speed Zones. It is important to consider the presence and effectiveness of on- going enforcement activities within the action area. Is the project in a State - established manatee speed zone or Federal manatee refuge? (If not, how close is the nearest speed zone? miles) 5. Relevant reports, including any environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, or biological assessment prepared. Provide any relevant reports prepared for this project. 6. Any other relevant information available on the action, the manatee and its critical habitat. Provide any other information available that would assist in our review of the effects your proposal may have on the manatee or its critical habitat, including specific actions.you may propose to eliminate or minimize potential effects on the manatee and its critical habitat. 7. A Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Manatee Impact Review. Provide a copy of the review, if applicable or available. Notify the Corps if the project is exempt from State permitting, regulatory review or authorized under a Noticed General Permit. 8. Additionally, for projects within counties having a State - approved Manatee Protection Plan (MPP), a determination of project consistency with the MPP is needed. The FWC typically makes the determination and includes it in its Manatee Impact Review. The following counties have State - approved MPPs: Brevard, Broward, Citrus, Clay, Collier, Duval, Indian River, Lee, Martin, Miami -Dade, Palm Beach, St. Lucie, Sarasota and Volusia. All State - approved MPPs are available for download at: www.myfwc.com. a. If there is a FWC Manatee Impact Review available at the time of your application submission, include a copy of the review. b. If the FWC review is not available at the time of application submission, you may attempt your own consistency determination and submit it with your application. If you do this, provide the supporting information and MPP reference which you believe makes your project consistent with the MPP for your county. In some cases, the supporting information may include a county MPP consistency letter. If so, submit it as part of your determination. October 2008 v m w 0 w 1611 ` 619 AA AA TTT A A TT A A T�TTT pp pp pp .}� T T T T TTT AA A T� TT TT N D N D N D N D N D N D N D N D �� N D N D -1 T1 -11 -1 -11 -n T T1 -1 -1 -n -1 -11 M M '11 M M M M •T1 M M M 21 Z1 n n n n n n n n n n n n 0 000000000_0 mm mmmmm mm 00 T v v v v v v v v v v v W D ci 3 A W N co V 01 0) W N i 3 = 0 3 N n I (a N n " "" N n 0' N n N 0 w 0 7" co n 3 N n "(a N 0 " 7" co ai n 7 N 0 3 2?SR q 7 O S W 7 �SSSS mao^,madavdE" > >3S= E-0 3 3 __________ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a N rt N o N rt y 0 N rt 0 N rt N— 0 N .' y N 0 N .�► a1 N 0 y rt y N 0 CO rt y N 0 y rt a3 0 y rt at N 0 N N rt N y 3 d m N N rt 0 CD o CA 0 3 F--- -- -- -x w w N a7 — C _ a) v —(a Oi —_ Oi d 0) g y — O C; 0000000000 'o 'o 'o 'o 'o '0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 S (� 3 n G o o o o 7T 7 N y 7T 7 N y 7T 0 N y 0t 7 N y 7t' 7 N y 7t 7 N y 7C 7 N y 7r 7 N y 9T 7 y y 0r 0 y y 7T 7 y y 3 p S= 0= 0 O 7 (yA 0) 3 N 0� 0 O N O N O N O ((! O N O N O N O N o -,,a � N v (D H_ 3. H. '� '� S. S. '� N S. - A •► (D W (D N rt A 00 rt N V rt (D to rt a) 0D 0) .� (D W rt (D N rt (D rt y 0D rt„ j CD o ° .01..1 dddd�?� '� m�m� 7 ' 3 c� ' 7 c� 7 D.< ' 7 (D� ' 7 CD ' 7 CD•< 7 D'< 7 ID �_ 0 0 '� +3 lrtD N 0 mmmmmmmm mm fJ = C1 = n= �. �. 7 a _+; a n n S 7 S 7 a S= a 0 m S N CD 0 y ai 7 aco aaaaaaaaaa wcowmwmmm 7 N C N 3 N N N C y a ca v 7 a) 91 0 (/j v 3 (n a N� N; `nD 0� 7 �� 0 0 CD W m W o � M f CD < m W O W CD W m < CD Go ID = 3 3 S (D > (C > a v 333333333 000.02%< a.<< a•< V CL v O. v a a �� D. << C. .< C. a '*� v a - 3 0 ID 3333333333 W_ N• y N Q] N (D N• W N. o S= N 3 2,2.2.2.2.2.2.2 3. ' G (C G (S3 G (C (D to (D (C O a < (C < (O G O (C a3 (G <3 `° r:S (D S -, 3333333333 a7 y a7a0 (D (D > N > y N a (D a (D a 0) 0 a . (D = n.< 7t' .Z7 N m CL a aC) a�C. a a a a a CL _ _. a. 0000 . ^. . ?. -,a ?. ?. ?. ?. 07 o7 41 27 S7 z Al O =0 Al =- W a) 0 01 00 0) 0 a) A) 0 ,Y Sv O -- -- - - - - �a)C.a�COa�a�C. -� 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ma 3 CL ~' 3 C rt 3 <C. a' 3 a 3 a? S (D a CC N° v at 0 " a1 0 v m O C 0 a1 L al w (c 3 (D w °_ O' lu y ai 0000000 0 7 X 0 0 X0 Pr (D " N 0 -� X X X 7 -� X X X ; n y (D y af; 5 Wa H "a° -u CL rL� a CL0a apa Qa �a ao as p °� -h - - - - - - 3 d (D 7t k 0 O k N (D v k < (D x< =. (D k (D k< =. (D X 0D K (D O K CD K °' CD v X = ' T A 0D o ID °n `G 7 �• 7 N 7 7 7 7 7 7 W 7 < 7 0 7 a 3 co O G O N O O (C tC co (C O �d O (a _s_ . O D�Dn Dm Dry °n a�, nd °W a) 7 a1 7 N 7 C 0 C 0 C 7 O 0 C 0 3 7 N 7; is 3 a a a a a a a a a a a -- (C om 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 a o a O a o a 0 a -, 0 =- o a d a d a a a a a a a a a a a .0 o _ 0z0 wN mN �y� O (n O N O 0 O N O (a O W O N O N O N O N O N� 0 3 3 y o a m (D s (D a (D a N a (D a N a (D a (D a (D a ID a (D CL x S 0D a = 3 _ y O v � d C O K to IA iA b9 4n N N -V) Vfl N t0 O a) V to W a) Ot A O 4A O a) 00 71 _00 V OO V 00 W O V to to O (D O V O W .A 00 s W 00 OA N o0 A (D W O 00 4�h O rn O O 0) O -( N On to W 00 O O O O O l�D W N n a 0 3 X X X X X X k X k k k k X N v , W N N A A N O y " V co W N' N T �• (D 01 W V O W V (n N M Z" O O O Ln O :_ W to 0o N N a7 N N N N N W N N N N N W 0) 00 V 0) (J( A O A Al 7 t0 co V n cn � 00 V to N V A 0) w N N < m (D N V 0) OD A 0n W A j V s 6) W O N d w v G m N 0o V 01 O A s O W N o o m O � W o 1 � a V 00 0) w w W A al N c 3 3 _ t7 ID �N T1T N � N_N N � 0 � CC -� 00 CO W N W W O (n PA r N A.. a w A al W V O N N m -0 D co c ci O W Ja N N O (D O ?• 0) m a CD �• < y. CD o a =3 0, o m a O M CD N m CD CD A O co 0 q2 O W N _O O v W O W 1611 B19 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 m m -n n -1 -n n cn cn Cn co cn fn iA Vl fA fn fn fn 0 W m m m m T_ m m 00 00 0 0 0 I I 00 v 00 0 0 0 0 0 v v v v v v v v v v v a 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CD p 0 0 o o o o W W 00 D D D D D 2 2 G7 T 41 3 W N W N N N N > > N O 3 = W 3 D o� 0 D D O D 2 y Da D a a D a D� 3 D v 3 n D a r: 3 f'"D CC m 1 C. CD CD (D < m M y N I 'D6 W " y N — -, .�. a� m `OG .p. m n N p. w to ° 3 °;BCD CD o 7 7 o m= °° O < O < O < 3 3 CD 3� mW<< 0 3 v< 0 3 m `G - 3 su - o CD 3 ama°� 3= Z a < L 3 0) C O 01 .3•r < C < 01 C < C < CD < C1 < su < < CD fOD < p O 3 CD (D CD N 0 (n 3 0 0 C ci 3 C. 7 0 (n 3 C. CD cn CC C. y CD cn C cn 0 O CD cn M CD y C. u) (A O -S� N• fC W 0 W 0 y X0 O 003ap- O O 'O -CD O 0 �O(D o00oAo�O S n oO v <'3, C0 Q, = = 01 _. p O tT O Cr O S .► _• C''p0 C. = C S _► 3 S W =! n •* n y, 3 y 3 3 3 3 p 3 N n 3 n M O 6 3 3 3 7. 3 a< = 01 CD CD '< W N = C w O •< .. 3 . . Cp M .. � N 6 Cr S N m . O• A 3 - = 3 3 3 3 (D 2 'o a 'v CD S 'o a A Cf W n n ° a) y 0 Z 0 CD�aaa C C. C. C. v o C o < °0 c 00 a 3 a3 a- y ►.' = 3� °••a = S 3 CL 3� �a m C. ° C. (D C. <� (D <' �� <m m m° ��v3fu ° C O CO) O 3 3 S W y o CO) (0 CD CD y O A CD su n S 0) O O C1 S O to < CD v < CD y- (D y y < CD �� 3 a a) 7C O .yi ti y 3' 3 y' 3y �y 3 Erw3 (D ? (n° CQp m a s a_ a ma CD 3 Om ° 0 t3D p° "' x 3 3 3 N N O N O O ° . O a - 7 a O y .3•' —_ W � 3• a a a a s 0) m _+ O O CD IJ O a ° n '* 3 3 3 0 0 S 0 S O O CD O Q. n C. n G S ii O O 0 0 •� S �, T a) 3 ° = C1 = A = C) CD C CO C � C CD 0) 01 C. CT N N C. U N N 3 n 0 CD y �. ,0.. () p 0 CD C a O C. m 7C 9) `< C W N O IV O CD y CD ' CD 0 C o ~' S O O .. O n OD (CA cn v W N> CL ;; 0 C0) M n 0 S y S � a (DD ° n CD N ° ° CD CD C 3 a 3 `< O m ° n n O< •G S y - C. a y. S S C. 3< S ° 3 CD Co ° 3 �< CD 3 0 CD N 3 3 (C ° °: o (D k 5 .. G 01 = 0 O O O CD N O N N CD n S a a: fl. �= 3 y - S 3 - 3• n a < ,. (D a < 3 CD C. _ O '- z C<D =r v w r. �G m a O .' a O 0) 'OG CD O S CD ID CD CD O N O C. C. - f C a• 3 m to tti ifi tf1 to ti i to tin to ien -(ft t,9 40 4n to tin N W Cil N N N W CA O wa tf3 A .A Cn A Cn 0 O O N W CA O tin V C° O 4 A cn N O A Co W O � CJ1 O W O V to N V V V N V CO N O W Co CA 6'1 K t1, W Cn W O A V 0 V CO 0 O 0 Ut 0 CC 0 O C CJ7 in O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O is O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (D W N T O -� (A % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % UU ty v- v 3 A O A A W W W CNO :14 O 3 (D O W V N a) 00 CA V Cn C7) w O 00 CO W 00 O Cn O - 01 CO co V fJl A 0o V W � C9 O C 3 N OD 01 Uf A CO p. CO s > a W C m `G n cn CD W W CA V 0 � ' 00 W O W 00 A O m m < N W 00 W W N W W A O N O 00 N tO m m v < m N o O N O CO V CA 00 cn A W N A o m 7 W A O O G7 Q Q1 W _ N 00 N N V ca c 3 3 I _ Z Vr (D 1 m 7 0!3 CC CO r A O1 00 V 0) N 00 O A m of W V O1 N A CO 00 o 3 c m o CD c 3 = (0 3 0 2 N CD -30 N O ?, m CD (CD O 3 N (D 0 < T N - (D n =1 o0 �0 � O � Q' N _. it Q (D A N (D O C m (n (D N N O 7 v CD CD co 1611 B19 r r r r r r r r r r -V -0 v T v -0 T O O O a O O a a 0 > > >> >> N -DI z z z z z z z z z z 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 O v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v '00 W W W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N O 0 n n n 60 03 do D D D L Z =n ;, m m m � 3 7 = D D D (n 3 ° O m � O m 2n 0 � X O m r 0 � m- m 0 X ° r Co M m m= D D o• D 3 01 CO D D W 3 m CD r. m r. CD m° < = 3a 0a r.a-a (D 'a ma pM m a m y = O .�.. as N 3 7 7 Cr �• 07 m 0 m CD 0 4i CD 0 ': v 0 :� m m m 7 a, - rt 3 7 O m< m a !v S 51 m S r -fD gm m r.m CD X— .� ID — 0 m X — 0 "• m m ... a 41 S �� g !ym ?� O m O m a S a S a S CD M S ,5. S" ._► = W CD CaD <' <' (AA CD CD CD M X O m O m O CD m m m su CD m CD 3 O O 0 •_y.•, O N K N X - 0 !m_C O k O k (O X C m 7' N CD N O o rn o �. $ v m 7 m O O Cc A a ID 7 :r 7 CD 3 W m 3 m CA = O 7 O fD 0 Ct 0 S C_ O" ° 01 7 00 �O �O N 00 .•'CC OU3 =' v QCD 7 fu O 7 W N _ mCD a 2 °�v a 2" �=v 30 a 2 v 0 2 ° v °1 2 Sv .°. 2 0 aai 3 S •Z �- cn r) a C 3 O O C ty cn0 0 .4 m 3 m = � S S a 0) o SU 0 W- A W o w w v CD m " m" a n Co = N° m 01 o m < a a O CD 3 _ m a m N 0 0 -4 -V 0 0 v O 0 �7 N m m 0 �* 3 a' 0 m < 7 CL 7 S 2 y' CO m ._•' S► ,_—, s* o - — tea) X .. ^"m " — CO v — = Cn _ CD CD m k O 0 0 3 O 7 = 7 m m O CD ..� S CD rt �D Ca 0 a ;: M ;� W m a m a D a su o fu m a K3 CD fu Q y O 0 0 3 ., M Ol v W N CD 0 CD CO N m m= v .. CD a CD m a N m O 0 � N w 3— 3 DSi v .•. 9rt1 >s w .. .y' 3 CD h fA m k :° CD m m CD 9C m CD ' m O' 0 lu 0 - v m o CD ° su 0 U! 7 CO N N y 0 91 _3 . m 01 CCDD = 2) = �• C) y w Co .�► � 3 O V v 'a 3 'a 3 0 3 COD C(D CD 3 m m m a 0 ° o CD rn o- to o'a = 0-a v �a •, <r m r m rl a 0 sv� r* 3 o a 0 x a = x 3 a• X ca cc cc a •• m O w o CD 0 a M O_O Cn � te° 3 CD a m '. cn m o cr CL m a m 3 O O m O O S 2) O fu :D. CD am) CD fQ Qv = m a•ry = m c m C 7 a•_ CD f) _ A c a' A o 0 3 3 �� s °: CD =S CL I ° 3°A° ?� m� Ow rn mow+ > y Sm SCD BCD 3 m m 0m 4 = < S ID 3 CD .. as 2 x �, r �' v m m m m 3 a O �0 ° mO 0 0 W v 0 v v 0 = v S m 0 = 'a =O = m _. (D ID .m•' ID m 'a m O. O N< V < < < m N < a C .� LI y ° - CL w C 3 a a V a '* S ty cf+ � 4A 40 60 4A 4A 40 4A 40 N CJ) W 0) (J) W CA O Cn V 4A 'En W N iA V) -.q 0 O a 0 W a) W En O) CJ) W .P W O A A -i N a) N W O CA CA O W O A CT O O W to O O N CT - W 00 00 O O 00 0o (D W A O c0 CT � LF O O O A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00, O O O O W N 'n a O 7 � N X X k k X X k X X X k X k k X k k C N N N co N V V P) N V -1 • CD V C l N CA V C7) N N j W CO Al — � C9 a1 7 C) A O W co W CO N V N DD V m a W DI m `< n CD C71 W N CO A A m N m N tD N s O O O O ar < H y O O A W (A OWO N s o � W m 0 x x 4) O. Cw W O N CO V * ONO O CCD A e 7 3 = a• N mTT � N d N O 7 W O W tT W A W W CA O V r (A A d w � V a) A k CWjC ONO N c A O (D r- 0 = 3 � T m o 0,0) CD N U 3 Cn . m 0 CD CD O C1 7 O 22 p OW W O O O to m N co CD Cn y O m v m 0) 0 00 1611'B19 ��y9y9 AA.LAAA V - AAADD�DD�D yLyp- ,y11,y,y 1.1 ll yy-yi 0000000ca CCCCC r r r r r r r r r r r x7cx�xx D �xx3333333 MMMU0000OOONNNNNNN 333 3333333AAAAAAA 3333333 " "' D D D D D D D D D D N NNNNN �I1 ~ NNN 1yyyyyy D WWW y2Z2ZZZZ mmmmmmm Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z= T� D �� DDDDD -I�ti D -1 DDDDD titi 0y�� - - - ---- 1-I v v v v v v v i/1 v v v v v v v v z 0000000 zzz.zzz (n —I 00000 ZZ222mWWNWNOO m < <��3333333 m m m� (n (/1 Cn (n (n in i/i (n z NNNNNNN NNNNNmmmmmmx A 3 D D D D D D D D D D � IM m m m m m m m m m z %. %.%. 0 N°N0ti0o0o CO M. 0000 0000 9'm O 4' -v ! 61 0m00004P4 P 4 P D 0N0P0 N 0N0Y0 P A v 4h- v v A A A v A- A v A v W v o p O V � 3 IM c°vviDooD�� iO°oWODD P�PP� ^3m7'o P3PPP,p.P "m ^- n3�Bg� P3PD= PPCoPD n ^sdnmmg y 3POZ�zsSP� a e4mA_ 3 a C2 n CD CD G7 D a <�^1mg2cm� mm �.,a.e.a a. m__ -e _ -CL C1 O. a C2 O. C1 C1 0 a a o 3 �, 0 0 a oSg o -O — -� m _° G y3 %Q3aw�---m „ ".i°?" =`.a" u0i G07 N m a m ID � a � c � 22 o.R� °'= -fin -� 7 O 0 O 3 O >> O 0 o m< n< nn °n 1.`6n p1 CD 3 S °.ppa0W38.''^ oo ^'° 7'�N�� CD >;zm > > .. .. =nD� ds5 °n D'?,< ,G ,G `< `< .� N sv m O C N - O< y 3 a 0anc 'nm� ^o y na m �. dgn$g °a.a� "R $�°m� ..« L*i �i � � � I 7 rt 7 CD N O .o° v CD CD mo »O'm °33 »5 "'� Z`mm- a.��5dm COm�m�$3,2.0^ CD CD CD CD CD y fD .D y M = C K n3m'��v o- ° m'eoa -"3^ �aAa °� ° CD CD CD CD CD „y„ 3 7 -n y me w^ 33 y y y V! cn 7 7 O O �,aO� a�pR3 -mo om- =mR�a.T1 "� v. W D -u 0 CD m ai 3.° Sid M9 m n G) a SU _ O �1.a m"_'_vQm ^no'o �.n� mQ�3.3n CD G CQ n' fQ W 7 Q 3 iZ v 7 cn stnn33< ° y ^ `- ' m -�.q "° m 7 CD tV CV G scm g Sa Qm 3 °mm m d m°j�o'o m^ m=� 3 �-'' c 0 3 C1 7 y - - — y CD m 3;mam�3 m'�. 3na� G >< to (O m N m ya'= m'a ga C A 3� ?'g3�•°- ^o m" v M< O O y »a • W n n CD O - ° ° °''3s m33 ^ =3 N CD A rL A — 7r N N N C U) 2 E CL t3 'n 3 3 41. .+ CD <D 0 CT 0 0 3 A� a x ` 3 N CD =r m = 3- sV x = O 3 `� y CD CD y CD I N CD COD CD Q y -' o g Cfl y .. 3 m m y y `� N ... N tZ p, .�. .G O - w_ CD o 3 y y = w 00 CD -g CD ,C1y, A a Q ? co CD ' _ A _ C 01 7 W a a _ A) v ° < 0 3 = y a a< CD CL c y o 0 c ffl fA 7, V) f A {A Efl " W O O) N 1+1 { <0 '60 W N O M - � �p A O 00 -4 p N N O N N �bH+V H O HHOOHH y +H W.. NH W. �r�fDp N. HHHHHHH+HH+CPC 00 W +Nro+1 W �M ynV ipS m0. O1 `''- T P, 00 -+. N N CD CJ) In 6 O ... 00�0�000 o .. . ....SSS88 ypN mp�pp 888'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c O M N x x x x x o H.H.H. x . . . . . . �x W Cl) � 0 X O 0 X X X X X X X X X X X N y s v — N N N N N N N N N N W 3 OD in O W V V ? W O V W O O V A CD m O 00 OD V U) m Cl) m (.3 s W W co D7 00 00 00 00 00 OD a) V U1 O .q ID W W W W W 00 O) CA CO O V O N CO 00 V 3 — � Cf D) O 7 W N W W W W W ca C7 to A W N M 0, 0) to W -4 n n Cn CD N N N N N N W N W W W N °1 < N W CO V Cn O O A Ut m CD y W N M T W N v A CA W N CO V UI m N o O N W W W W W W N N N N 08 m 0) V W N -► T O 0 W W V ' W A O iv c) O. A V Cn A Cn W N W CO O O 0 2 a. 0 CD 0 d 7 N O N N N N N N N N A W W N A m y � V O) Cn A W N O cfl V O O „<� A d W W N N N N N Co Cn tn. V A W CO N O CO CO c m c» D 0CDC 3=(D 3 ow 'G N O N O O 3 N. (D ID N N. N O f? O O N0 CD ( co Cn CD to Co O 7 O O N O_ O (U W O W n O 3 3 c 3 a 0 CD 3 CD v 1 S N O O 0 -0 D O m r- 3 0 c 3 D) 7 j W A Z l< N CD 30 N O o �• (D m a 3 y m o < :3 < — m O d 7 :3 co O W O O O S. Q v FD* X y m O C N m y S2. O 7 5 rr-0 D D -0 D� ��rrrr� D D D D D D � D D �� D � D D � ��pp D D D D D D D Z Z Z 1 1 2 1 1 -i Z Z ;a 1 1 1 1 1 D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 v v v 2 S v 2 2 2 v v X -) -) 2 2 T 2 2 2 T) m 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 -) -i T T -) w fA w N N (n (j) -) -) w N T Cn N N M M N N N N Cl) w w T Z! Ti T '1� n a 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 D D D D D D m m m m m m v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v o v v v v �oba adoDDD6D6o o boo a) boo aDD v 6 m m m i o o o a a vooD D W W N N N D 6 O W N O— L S N W N N b W 00 V A W N m a D T. m ID D D 3 a a v W ° A o D 3 W° D D 3 D D D� 0 W W> > a CL C, p a (p m a a ;+ :-' '� a p y < y< a d y at m m < y CD <(n a •• -0 < y< y m m •p (' Q < CO < y'0 0 y 0 cc) 0 0 � 0/ n ca (a o � <_ �+ m 3 3 m N 3? � ? N a p) (o (o y m. nt ? d W y p) < m a' O °.: °-' (0D m c c o (P7 n nP < < nP n < (7P ° 0-0- n n N m o'i °- p (7P (PD < - o m 3 d O < y (A 7r .. = 0 0 a n 0 O m m p m O p S p Z° .. < .. < .. < < .0. 0 0 3 C) 0 o fl 0 < A n _• m a .< m 7 0 o' >> o' 0 a a `< � m O > y > N y m C m c � a y Al c v y = m' .0 > a y > y m CD � m m m ° v `< y > c y > LA. p j Co ,y, y 0 0 7 .. .. .+ CD 3 N o m y p 0 N 0 3 N .. M S y y O y o 3 y o (A o Co m 0 (n E� �< y m m F m 3 3 m m m m' ' m '� 3 3 E m 3 0 0 3 m o (D vm �m °• 'D y 3 T .v. .v. .O. .v. .Oi .c. ,c.. ,c. ,c.. .v. ,v» ,�. 3 0 CD W 7 3 0 m O < O < a a D O a'< -w m '< CD (D a'< CD v'< N -_w O < a a '< O M A o 7 o 7 C_ m O 7 O 7 (D y 3 N �< �< (D .< D) D) 3 = K y 0 N N 0 N m °1 (p j (n v �' vi G7 >> y 7 y Cf O 7, Vl f� 0 a) _� w O• y _� 7� V) N o W N N "• O O. N vi < O. m y p O 0 O O 7 ° 3 (D y° a a 0 O< m m o c m o m y 3_ <m (D 3 O n Z a m _ Co a(n S o v m = -' m ° m °. ID -m °• m a 3 =< CO 3 < L a M. a -0 (° ID m O n n C 7 1 m(D ?(D fl• n N < m ,°Z ° 0 a LC .0•' x ti (C m (D a W d y y ID CD N. (D y m y y O a 3 S a o y y CD y a) 3 0 CL S y y y O < y m y ID Ol m O a a S W n p m 3 m pj > m y' > m a a a c' > m > m (p y w m m m m m m n m 7 0 0 < 0 a a a y' v° a 0 a 0 a a (p a N p' 7 -yv a a a t �2 0 ••-• N 0 � N d _C a= p1 LD to C1 n N n d 0) f 0) 0 m 0 j 0 W S DI N O ID ID (C O) d ID y rt S d n S () S y (D > a > a p p 7 a p 7 a A S y 7 a 7 a X () m a Z O O d K m a m a 7 a '� G (D p tS (D N� n a : y. z y .y. (D S a a A A C 3 d m A f to Cf Dt to tv Q S F S a W O pt m N n y m D (SD m y .... m y O 0 m ID m 0) a f° m 0 O) m Dot m y(n x m it m w = A N w "" `pG 1 N 0) w a S f N N c Q' m CL y a a a y S S (D y .� `G (O m a a W N a a S a a y m tD (FD a a a O D ID S 0) D) W v 0 m y m m D ;0 m A m y, m m S(A ti, 3 v v y m m m to M y + y `< K 0 0 y .r X X a m X m K• .< a X X a ° N 3 X X X a N O' N S A y y a O C1 y (A 0 '"'. 0 (n y .m•. N 3 Dt A �. 3 m — y �• 0 7 7 N d 7 0) 7 7 7 y `� N O a 7 7 7 N Vi N < y O O 3 (O to D) O (° Dt 7 0 O O p O O m a 7 0 a N (D O7 w 0) m .aO <' d d S 0) F N D) 0) 3 a a m a m a a a (o ? °: wo S m y a O d a a a a y a o CL a m ,< O a a a a a a a Dt m a pD f Oo m° 3 vai o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 a < v o 0 0 f =r a s a d y a a m a a a c D( Q Q a s y y m y y 0 y (n m ° a m y y y_ y y o O m Y a m a m a K m a O v (D a �j W y CD a CD a a y W p m a m a m a 7 o Er M y F o< 3= m n n () n =< C) n m O () n !z A O S m O o 0 0 m 00 0 0 -_ (p m 0 0 o y c m 0 . .0+, m N y N y m G N N 4 3 U) N N S C) n Q A .. f <D g y O O 0 c 0 c a 0 m d m d a m d S K m d m m e ._. p N N y N N y N to N y 2) A O O O Oa j co ID O O 0 N O 4�1 p S 0 ID S 0 W O V A ID W N N O O .0•' (7 v o m c c m e m O ° m m v v 0 o m (�D m m v 3 (<p m CD m m m O 0 CD Doi ° a v m > > m (aD a m v m ° y= �<� W W 03 Q1 co W m> 7 j EA Ef) 40 EA EA EA EA Efi to Eft EA Eft EA EA Ef) EA -. T W O N N W j K/ Vi Ef) Eft O O to EfD EA EA W -a U1 N Ef) N n N O O V w O W T V EA O lO 0) N W N W N O (A s O EA 0 N N V C71 O C'n V V V A N y) •V 71 . N 0O y) O N V O O0 O A t0 W ao V (n 0 W O V O O co N W U7 (7) CA O (1) N O 00 W O w V — CO (0 N (A (7) CO W O (n W O A V A O W 00 CD O O O O O O O N O O O CA 00 A 0 0 O O O O O N 07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A O UI O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 07 N O O N O O 0 0 O V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O w O 0 c) 0 W O W V A A A A W W W N N 0o W N 00 co 0 0 co O) U1 N V V N N 0) O O) V 00 N .� O (7) N N O O 0 O W O 00 00 w V 0 Cl OI — (0 p) W W O (n w 0) O W O O v) O nc ' EA st EA to 40 Ef Ef A 40 W W W W N � - Es) EA EA EA (0 to lw C1 W V O O W N (D CD V V O w M N (n m j V 0) O U7 W W — 00 V A A j V 0) W N N N CO CO V — O O O N CD N N O iA W A N CO N CT V W O W N -1 W O CO W (A PD w 0 O A 0 w 00 Es) r+ V N W 0 CJ) -� 0 O V (D O w W 00 W 0 N N co s �• •� s O V W W W 0) O 0,. O co 0 c0 O (7) CT O O - T V W O W H W N N O N V N N N N N N W A N N C) A co V W O oo n y 7 W C)I N N N W -+ W W N O N A N O N N V 00 N m `t to O W O O A W N V (0 0) F m 0 0 O) O T V N ()( O W CO V A W O y , v w < y T W A N W V O O co p A p) N (N)) (WO W 0WD N V A N m w W 0 d v 0. V CA OWf O OND O 0 8 N O V 0) (O A W N N O V W A -N+ (p A ID Q CD O W W N O V O C) ? W A w N N y 0) (O co W A O N W o x m 3 w � y N O V O W t0 O N N O O W O V N T O O V N A O N W A N m A w m O O A W N O W O W O V Of w a7 A A W N W V 0 c n O 3 3 c 3 a 0 CD 3 CD v 1 S N O O 0 -0 D O m r- 3 0 c 3 D) 7 j W A Z l< N CD 30 N O o �• (D m a 3 y m o < :3 < — m O d 7 :3 co O W O O O S. Q v FD* X y m O C N m y S2. O 7 v >v CD (D co O O O O O W N O_ O N W O W 1611 619 r 1 v v 1 Z r r r r Z Z Z r r r v v r r r -Di -Di G) G) G7 G) G7 S T T 2 2 T T T T T p 2 2 1 2 2 0 0 5 T T 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 Z T n T n Vl y T n T 00 T T n T n n Z Z Z 1 Z U) n y n N n T n T n Z Z Z N N Z Z Z N D G) G) G) G) D D D G) G) G) G) G) G) D m m m m 0 z Cl) W N N A W W W W A A A > W W W N N W W W V 0 0 0 T T- 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 G7 C) W W W E T D D D (� N m W N> 0 0 0 D o g D D o D 00 D O o D o D D D D A$ O 2 D D D o y A y ZJ W A ZJ D 3 W 3 Z7 ° 3 U) y a M m y 0 a m p °< (D a a m y O N O (D O O oa m p1 0 (D (D CD (D °►CD °_ -.m _ ;, a m m r(� a = a a °1 o� 00 3 °w 0 0 a p °I 0 _ K= ° _ _ z= _ — — v p', 3 3 m n 0 d 0 m 3 o' �d O 0 •+m O 0 7 3 (1 3 m �, .°. Cf m A cnm C! o < .d. �, y ID (p (D A 0 (D a (D a 'O (D < (D DI 'O 'O CD a ' d S N -0 M CL S (n y m _ y — y = cn y co y A 7 x y (D (D 3 A ID CD O) O N O' (D (D ° y y 0( C O O O O O M O y cn OD O O Oy, N (D N O 'p » p O O O (D ID a N y y° �_ m ,y. = m 0 3 ID x. ° a .k. n K ^* O O 0 0 0 0 0 y p c c o= M to � O) y o i N .y. N .y. O� � y 0 M 0 C D- 07 N a = 0 7 Q _ Q m= _ = CL 9 A 0 n= y O y 0 a 0 = 7C 0 A O Q O S to .. (O = O7 7 (! (-y N O> O' > O' G7 W w> fA O m= d Ci ° 2 �° 2 N 2 3 O O 2 2 N Q (o 7 = a 7 On(" Cl 70(' 3 (D a CO 0 'O 0 3 0 7 7 O _2 x o N = ID ID C N E f! O N y N Q N -• co `pG x 0 O 0� A d A 0= O° m 0 or N CL y (n °' 7 °' N pOj y N 3 >• S (° j 0 O (O m c n 0 0 y 0 ,('I„ y n m y y (D W 3 X X C V (O p � d y (<D a a Df 3 A 3 o m 3 3 d (o d 3 a 3 (D 2 v ('o o; a o 3 0• .yi C" a .yi =" m n _` (n < �? a M m M 3 cr m °' ID 3 m Q (D a (D M o °_ o (o o' = v °' a a oo m K 3 3 p 3 o DI Q <' y (D = w = = w O' = y» (D W •° y a < C = (C (J( < "O m i, (D �, (D O7 m o D y a a a cn (a k X �' a< i 0 y n ID N IDD (� . V f O7 j y f1 & M A A N A M A C7 ° N C7 ID ai A y= N° cD N o. 3 m N m d= C1 = y n N a y O n y aD toll DSi — X — O — O) N Cr — — A Ol (O (C O O O 3 p- .. 7 07 = " N a ! r n (a (D A G y y 7 (D y C ._+ S K " ._. 7' K N .y. 7 A N 3 7 (O N l0 d -°.. Q° m m F o (o '^ v a 3.y y f 0, 0 0 0a a 0a s w d 00 0 0 o o =al 1° � 0 'm 3'03 33 (D 0 3m (D 3(D (D G'° 0 a 0 < = w 3 a O N m n 0° y 'O ° 'O m O, a, m ° 3 (D r- (° r (D r (0 N 0 ° (n ° v r° °'0 3 m 3 m o 3mc ° ?xyx' 3K 301? ?°1?a 07 (D N 3 W = 'C a 3 w N (D C C T= _ y A y T a a O .Oi a_ A a 0! m < N (D Sv O N N ^ N K N= = N C D 3 a a (n =� N U) .a A D _ a a N G 3 m (D r CD � (pn (pO CD `OG m ((D 3 O O a k 7' (D R (n 7c y 7C y y G C 'O". O "O Df 7 (C 07 -F; p N -0 O O M O A= O O N= .d. a1 N to n O) CD N d F n A = 7C O7 m = o D (q g ( m d o m ID s ° y w W m ( m , ° fD < < < CL a s (D = a p a m (Da N a a a 0° 0 x N 0 0 0 K n 0 o N S m O N N V N D1 a (<D (<D 'm 0 o a C Y D °° y .O. .O. (o a (D s a w 3 °o '� m Cl) m m m m m' (o to �» o o -A. 3 3 �. =c f 0 CL ID (Q (p ° f<D (<D ca N W N CD m rn E!9 EJ9 to 4A b9 ifi Ef9 Wi (A to b9 iA iA iA fA EA dl 4A > -.0 fa A N N -W fA OI A N fA b9 N Ot W O W ful A A O7 W 0) W N O N V 10 � n 0 -� N W V A W> A A QD A (D (O T W O A N O1 N > A 07 W O W OI VI O) O co N > O 4i/ co N O Of W Ot W W A A 1 O N O W W O 01 > N Cn V z O C V CO W 00 CJI (fl O to (n -N > O > O to CO ? O O O CJf O O OJ to O O Ol (D O W O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O A O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O 0 O to 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 O O O O O O O O I O O— V V N O (D CO PO V V V V V -q V O O1 W N Ol V V O1 O O) 0) M N -+ CD co O O O co OI O OI Ol O co W W O V1 W (D O :. b9 1.0 V1 EA to ffl en d9 10 to b9 (A 00 N W co V V V O Q) O O Q7 VI UI A QO 0) Ot Ot co O1 N A O W A i 0) (n 47 N V N O -� (D N OO 07 A 0) A > - -0) W (D _O N W A N to to - W -! W W O O O T a7 O N O w W A OO (D > (D OD V V N w N — � d _ O 07 W A A N W W > A W w V N> V O W O A A. W co OND (Wp y m y (D 0 n W W> A W N W W N N W W N W N a (n V 01 (D O tD tD CA > co V CD W A N N w L y W D. W W O A O N (D N CO W V (D N V W Ot W O > O N W N N N m= w o m 0 a A W W W W N N W W > N N W W 3 3 O (D OO A W W A (D N> N W N 01 V -3 (D o- 0 C) W A A W A N W ca W N N N W N W > N N N N O O N 0 N> O A W V D to 00 V ° ° m _ O � A y 0 0 A A A W N W N W A N N A W W W N m O W N W tD W T 01 > Ol A O N O A V A w �i (D N > O O 01 V > Ol V c0 01 N A Ot aD 3 c m n O 3 3 3 a o' m 3 O .=i 7 0 N U) CD ('D (D N O O 0-0> 0 m c 3 3 _7 07 N o (D 0 o Z' rn (D (D Q 3 y (D < N N 0 N O d CD O W O D) O . d� (D N CD (p O C D) G7 (D y_ O 7 161 1 t n a From: Keith Dallas [keithdallas @comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 9:18 AM To: Resnickl- Subject: Summary &CIP rankings Attachments: CIP rankings 8- 2- 10.doc; ATT00001..txt Lisa, I have developed the attached summary of the CIP rankings as they stood the other day. I did it because I was having trouble interpreting what some of the descriptions meant. My new one tries to use language that is easier to understand. Would you send this out to the PBSD members and bring lots of copies to the meeting. Your massaging of the results may adjust the rankings slightly, but probably not whether we think an item high versus low priority. I thought we could use this, along with the more complete sheets as discussion items at our Budget Committee meeting tomorrow. Keith 1 of 1 8/4/2010 9:21 AM by LR CA on �o 0o N a° a¢ U I61 �' B19 O M M M M � O O O _ N N �p O O� [- O lO - v� V 00 O N 000 � O r- 00 ONO L N ci - M M �n N \O C) �O \10 l� n n V'l � lD � ci •--� .-i .-� — — — O O O OM o p O O O 00 N O O O GrS OOO 69 p 00 N kn a O 4 O Q\ O� OO \1 \O OO 00 O C ^ p kn O M l� Q� N U cz F" M a 0 z ° � Ln cd �� cz �O.> s oA.. Q oQ cQ a � Q �� ' 3 4, ;o U o �" a °' Q a ° ° � o -se cz tc o c7 a 3 a� � C7 � Gl � >, � `° Z! Ca �. Q cz tC4 ��3 a 3 cc � �- o zx m kn Cd O m �. L a o U -o-caU CAC U Gqa� �a� 0 oo a 0. M rs. � ccd a I ' ❑ Q oU -o -a o., `kn x cl x Q o s G un 3 3 3 3 U oCA °33x a� I I I U�rx CL I (A� U Q 3� � U 3 c ;3 U un rA x�-U 3Q¢¢ uzurx¢uu x¢¢ UU xC12 e*'�' ¢aiOOO UUUU wW _ W N -� M _ d_ [� < NM00 OO M N �i Fri O 4a �' B19 rA bA O � O N > N o � •� on a Q U 161 n ` 819 N ••• �' � '�h \O ,� �D � M N [� N oo � U�M� der- -00 Ln -- oMo M 69 —' •--� N M M M M � � � � y � O O n v M O O'� kn CC 00 b4 r- O O\ O r� M o0 � N M L CC U U CCS O c cl a cl 3 Gq ct U an o o rA a a 3 3 0 U A v O �o� o 48 �?� `4.. ��a _ � -� n -� o C7 r Lt Q. cz ca M 3 ocz o ct 3 E cd 3 o 'A cd u� Qd� C4zi cn C4� ao c _ d F1 N Un.. N CL 'A cC CL m C m Q 'O s cn ti F a z a GL cC n ` 819 N cn �o Co N rA 'y cn O � � O GL U 6 141 S.. M kn M k k C, cl, O ON 011 M M �O M N -- Uo °ino�o � `° N Ln Zt 00 00 00 0o a� d 0 U o00 O O O 00 O O O p 0 0 000o 0 0 0 p 00 0000 O O O 0 0 O 0, M 0 O O O V SO MO pp O M Ln N o0 O oN0 �p vMj r � i. N O V 03 °' 3 Cd O 'C3 as O s. _ �.. V] a w O • V U C-0 N rq cl rn `� — Q E L_3 O OO o Q a0i Q > cd -o 3 " U �. �° in. a ^ �c Q •� M CJ O b b' O •.. 3• 0 CL ,^� o cn ca r•�� C o as CIS U N U U U U U U U U U '••" N i N a .� E O c� �' E E O 'C3 C% C% U C//] Q Q L� rO C%� V] Q c S V] C C% U C% rig Q Q Q 5 bD N UQU U NM W `� `� 'a MCI U CL m C N cd" v U bOA Qun "a I rte+ ++ Q" V d�" �•-� M ResnickL August 4, 2010 - 9 a From: lukasz_k Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 4:30 PM Update On Tree Trimming for Lighting To: Subject: McCaughtryMary; ResnickL August PBSD Meeting Page 1 of 4 Attachments: Street Light Obstructions.xlsx L.,•, 1611 B19 Please add to power point. The map I reference is Proposed Roadway Lighting Diagram in the Wilson Miller Report. If you can't put in the agenda disregard the reference to the map in the text below. Street Light Obstruction Recommendations After review of the street lighting obstructions a list was made with the recommended modification which closely follow the recommendations of Wilson Miller. This list is included in the agenda package along with a map identifying the pole locations. Below is the total costs for the recommended modifications that include either pole relocation or tree /palm removal. An addition 42 lights had further pruning performed to enhance lighting effectiveness. 12 — Poles Relocated 45 — Trees /Palms Removed $ 27,300 $ 7,350 $34,650 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. 1 of 1 7/27/2010 8:18 AM by LR Street Light Obstructions - Tree /palm Removal Fixture Number Obstruction Recommended Action August 4, 2010 - 9 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Update on Tree Trimming for Lighting Page 2 of 4 102 103 2 - Sable Palms Remove 104 105 2 - Sable Palms Remove 108 109 1- Sable Palm Remove 114 115 1- Sable Palm Remove 118 119 2 - Sable Palms Remove 122 123 1 - Sable Palm Remove 134 135 1- Sable Palm Remove 136 137 2 - Sable Palms Remove 138 139 Oak Canopy Remove 144 145 1- Sable Palm Remove 146 147 1- Sable Palm Remove 156 157 2 - Sable Palms Remove 158 159 1- Sable Palm Remove 162 163 2 - Sable Palms Remove 164 165 1- Sable Palm Remove 192 193 2 - Sables Remove 198 199 1- Sable Palm Remove 206 207 2 - Sable Palms Remove 208 209 2 - Sable Palms Remove 212 213 2 - Sable Palms Remove 214 215 1- Sable Pam Remove 218 219 1- Sable Remove 232 233 Sable Palm, Tababu Remove 3 Sable, Reloc PI 260 261 1- Sable Palm Remove 612 613 1- Sable Palm Remove 614 615 1 - Sable Palm Remove 622 623 2 - Sable Palms Remove 628 629 1- Sable Palm Remove 636 637 1- Sable Palm Remove 700 701 1- Sable Palm Remove 730 731 1- Sable Palm Remove 900 901 1- Sable Palm Remove 1611 B19 August 4, 2010 — 9 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Update on Tree Trimming for Lighting Page 3 of 4 Street Light Obstruction - Pole Relocation Fixture Number Obstruction Recommended Action 152 153 Oak Canopy Move Pole 166 167 Oak Canopy Move Pole 196 197 Sables Relocate Pole to S. Med 216 217 Oak Canopy Relocate Pole 30' South 224 225 Oak Canopy Relocate Pole 30' N 232 233 Sable Palm, Tababu Remove 3 Sable, Reloc 254 255 Oak Canopy Reloca. Pole 10'W, Prune 704 Oak Relocate Pole Across St 706 Oak Relocate Pole 20' N 720 721 Sables Relocate Pole 10'S 722 723 Sables Relocate Pole 20' N F-8361 10ak Relocate Pole Across St 16111° B19 0 0 CC e C, 13 o� ca S § O 4w to ~ p (D CL 0 w LvDv3s 1 ,gdw� 16 0 ! 00 so V- � - - IN 16,11 t 0 C. 0) H 4A Y1 .O L a .O bo C O m co c m V a FAV w = a w a w a s m m a d w a a v w a a v a a a o E E E E E E E E v E E w E m E v E E E V u U V > $ t ° d T 2 c z ° o w > v m m m a w E co c u «L° o ? . o E N «O g 3 E Y ':=.m A c o LL w = o � °o8 O c o 0 d o a « -o u c o � 3 2 2i -go Im o "O m 41 Wu E ie V>p. z a u o c E ° c n m ti l Z = C Q °-Oo U ' m O m °n m e « u E ry ri E o ti w o m C rmi m¢ o mo N o E _`o fii `o u c v a d - a ani m u >C m c v 3 > LL >, ' c a > ._ m m o x a u c Lw ° c E a¢ a cw a o o c E „`-• u o E a > m t Z y m° E i S i v •3 w m ° > a. °°a N a ^ E o E m u a c w 's n `«wc c e c w y N E v ¢ v m MO -2 N j « C �o v > W O OFw 1 3 c a u L9 07 -M E u v � .o E._ 071 u y h w w p .+ ` E E C Q a q i n n Y c E o° o n m o g ^' E X n d EL m u o c o m o a N ` u 3 0 5 n o r `o' u ° a c N m E° m- o um m a y m - E v! v a x Vc a ° ? cv�i .°n o° Y q m v c a w m -M E a o c . o> c d m w g o °o o u E z c Yc u o > g E �^ �o cn m E m o ° o to Yn � v •E E° �"�w ' N E u N .m � a O =^o' 'c1°mIW ° wwn °` • v'.g c V ? m ywy a a m o m E 0 .N ° ' 'Ya " -v w E � ' m o E ° -4 z m0 n n E ' m° i o 2 ° t.« y s a ~ 0 E > o .° N y o d m c 3 >° ..o° w ° ° u o c N m o w `Vo ti « E cg o c d w a 0 c" r > gc o _° w u w d 32 E a c r Doti c N y w o > a oE w - v - va'u ° o E� mm C o ° a d E N H u :a 10 n E. c > «m v u° vt 3rvo u ° V. Lc `« u « = N EvE E° ° y o ndV n z o Q= -o o E o ¢ > m o Y0 ° '- s 'qw m c w m m a v 3 ° ad f 0 3 > a o o o °m � d ¢ v -m m oo �v c ` v E 5 xw QYa , M ti3 y = o a o a u r °p N E LL E co dn . E a om d d ° o t _ 3 m a a m o o o y �o o uai o o m Y o a° v m o E ' o m - Y �no Nc m u m3°v ° U-4 Z N a C Z Y Y Y Y z p Z ° Y z z z z z z Y E O T 0 Y w m o z u m a _o ' m T m m O n 1 .� E w o 0 l7 m q a o m c a o 071 v No t 3 w w c71 c 1. c > 3 m ob u w a u Z 0 E U 'C S « v 0 o 12 � a o T a E 0 Y m Za - c 3 c c - w c w o '°- w E- r c m 0L •m Y c° - m w w Er z° °m c $m c ° m > -° E c ,a a o o N = c ° TE i =' _ - m° u w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O1 o 0 � 2 H N N H O O n n a S C law 1611 B19 PBSD Meeting 08/04/10 Comments submitted by Linda Roth The PBS &J Report is 79 pages long, excluding 5 pages of Executive Summary, and 2 pages of References. Of which 26 pages (p.p. 10 -36) is on Water Quality Review and Analysis, and 40 pages (p.p. 37 -77) is on Hydrographic Data Collection and Analysis which pertains to water circulation and flushing. It appears that CZM again directs the peer review to focus on the Water Quality portion of the PBS &J Report, and marginalize the Hydrographic Data portion. It is the Hydrographic Data Collection and Analysis that is being used in the proposed CP &E Circulation/Flushing Model Program. I think it is very important that PBSD's Peer Review Scope of Work clearly gives equal focus on Water Quality, and Hydrographic Data Collection and Analysis, if not more on the latter. Under Consideration, I would like to suggest that the second paragraph be deleted for the following reasons: 1. The paragraph emphasizes the importance of the Water Quality portion of the PBS &J Report, and marginalizes the Hydrographic Data portion. This directs the reviewer to focus on the Water Quality portion of the Report. 2. The language "but also expertise with respect to the proactive development of our specific water quality standards for the Clam Bay estuary system, and the establishment of our multi -year estuary management program that will address the critical water quality issues as opposed to having FDEP establish solutions." First of all, this is not part of the PBS &J Report. It is not the reviewers' responsibility to consider these matters. Second, this language favors experts associated with estuary management programs named by Coastal Zone management. As Kathy Worley pointed out, these estuary programs are good at overall management of an estuary, but as far as expertise is concerned, they subcontract most of their scientific work to consultants. This language eliminates many experts who work in universities, and research institutes whose experience in estuary management is somewhat limited because they are scientists not managers. Under Evaluation and Selection process at the bottom of page 4 of 9, in # 1, the last sentence should add the word modeling/ in front of hydrology. If possible, please add Dr. Robert S. Young to PBSD's list of recommended reviewers. Contact information for Dr. Young is attached. Thank you for your consideration. Western Carolina University - Robert S. Young � r of 2' 16 1 RaILE '!! estern Search arolina A to Z Index I Site Map I My Cat I Blackboard/WebCat I Contact WCU About WCU Admissions Academics Library Student Life Athletics Ne" Events G wng to WCU RELATED LINKS Home > Academics > Departments Schools & Colleges > College of Arts and Program for the Study Sciences > College of Arts and Sciences Departments > Geosciences & of Developed Natural Resources Department > GNR Faculty & Staff > Robert S. Young Shorelines Robert So Young Department of Geosciences and Natural Resources Professor, Geology; Director, Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines Phone: 828 - 227 -3822 Email: ryoung @email.wcu.edu Office Address: Belk 294 Website: http: / /p5ds_i cu.edu Areas of Interest: • Coastal processes and coastal management • Hurricanes • Wetlands • Environmental restoration • Holocene landscape evolution in the southern Appalachians Courses: • Oceanography • Wetlands • Coastal Science Education: • Ph.D. Geology, Duke, 1995 • M.S. Quatemary Studies. Universitv of Maine. 1990 http: / /www.wcu.edu /9637.asp 8/4/2010 Western Carolina University - Robert S. Young B.S. Geology, College of William and Mary, 1987 Recent Publications & Presentations: Young, R.S. and Conkle, L.J. (In Press). A new report on the antiquity of Southern Appalachian heath bakis. Geology. Young, R.S. (2007). The importance of carbon loss through wetland erosion in the Albemarle- Pamlico- Cunituck Sound system, North Carolina. Southeastern Geology, 45:2:51 -58 Bush, D.M., Neal, W.J., and Young, R.S. (2004). After the Storms: Geologists look at coastal zone building. Architectural Record, 1112004:65 -66. 161'1 ppa-gg1q Copyright 200 by Western Carolina University Cullowhee. NC 28723 Contact WCU Maintained by the Office of Web Services Directions Campus Map Emergency Information Text -Only http: / /www.wcu.edu /9637.asp 8/4/2010 16-1/1, B2 0 i Fiala Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Halas . ' Advisory Committee Henninl 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Coyle Naples FL 34104 Coletta AUG 2 4 2010 May 18, 2010 duaw of i; ;)u ay Lommissioners AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: April 20, 2010 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report- Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - Hannula VII. Landscape Architect's Report A. McGee & Associates B. Windham Studio Vill. Old Business IX. New Business A. Summer Meeting Schedule X. Committee Member Comments XI. Public Comments X11. Adjournment The next meeting is June 15, 2010 3:30 p.m. CC Transportation Bldg. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Misc. Corns' '� Date: � la item C ^nips to: /V/ lb�l Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. B2 0 • Advisory Committee 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 April 20, 2010 Minutes I. The meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 3:31 PM. II. ATTENDANCE Members: Dale Lewis, Betty Schudel, Bill Jaeger (Absent), Helen Carella, John Weber County: Darryl Richard- Project Manager, Tessie Sillery- Operations Coordinator, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM Others: Mike McGee —McGee & Associates, Scott Windham - Windham Studios, Jim Stephens - Hannula Landscaping, Darlene Lafferty—Kelly Services III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Add: V. C. Landscape and Curbing Betty Schudel moved to approve the agenda as amended Second by Helen Carella. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 16, 2010 Change: Pg 3, VI., bullet one, should read: Broken irrigation pipes "on Devonshire Blvd" due Boring for the Street Lighting Project. Dale Lewis moved to approve the March 16, 2010 minutes as amended Second by Betty Schudel. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Budget Report — Caroline Soto Tessie Sillery reviewed the following: (See attached) • Received Revenue Structure $279,326.92 • Available Operating expense $61,978,41 Darryl Richard reported: • Phase III monies ($536,815.70) will be encumbered in the April Budget • Juristaff is providing Secretarial Services in place of Kelly Services B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard gave the following information: (See attached) (R -18) Radio Road Phase III Project o Anticipates NTP will be issued for May 3, 2010 1611 B20 Discussion took place on Lane Closure Fees. (See attached) Dale Lewis addressed the following: o Estimated Lane Closure Fees - $20,000.00 o Perceives Lane Closure Fees are inappropriate as the Project is a Capital Improvement (for the County) o Inquired if TECM was charged Lane Closure Fees during installation of Curbing Darryl Richard confirmed Lane Closure Fees were not charged during Phase I (Curbing between Devonshire and Tina Lane.) Dale Lewis resumed: o Questioned why Lane Closure Fees are applicable as during previous Project Phases fees were not charged (when blending with TECM Project) o Perceived Lane Closure Fees are offensive (to Tax Payers of Radio Road MSTU) as the Project will be complete when turned over to the County After much discussion it was determined a Policy change was adopted on Lane Closures. Michelle Arnold will inquire on the following questions on Lane Closure Policy and report to the Committee via email: o Date the Policy change was adopted o Clarification on the meaning of the Policy o Definition of Capital Improvement (R -18) Radio Road Phase III Project o Pre construction meeting to be conducted in May o Curbing Contract -120 days o Anticipates mobilizing both Contractors simultaneously to expedite the Project (R-15) Radio Road Phase II -B & Phase I -A o Final completion date was extended to May 27th due unavailable Plant Materials o Replacement of Royal Palms is scheduled due to effect from cold weather (R-15) Maintenance Contract o Requires re -bid due to a 20% increase for Phase III installation (maintenance component) o Suggested Hannula Landscaping meet with Purchasing to discuss options (R -19) Maintenance Consultiniz Contract Scott Windham reviewed Annual Services Proposal, highlighted the following: (See attached) o Provision is included for minimal Design Services 2 o A Support Team was incorporated 1611 82 O - Kichner- Horticultural Advisor (limited basis) - James Abney- Irrigation evaluation and assistance • 1 year Contract • Base Bid - $11,856.00 • Bid total - $14,772. 00 • Confirmed time served (with Mike McGee) for Project familiarity is Pro bono work • Project completion date - June 2011 Dale Lewis moved to approve (Windham Studio Proposal $14,772. 00) as it is a reasonable Proposal for the Scope of work Second by Betty SchudeL Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Radio Road Beautification Sign (See Attached) Discussion ensued on the proposed Sign designed by McGee and Associates. The Committee was in agreement (2) Signs will be installed Radio Road. Darryl Richard will coordinate with Traffic Operations on placement restrictions for the Signs. Staff requested suggestions from McGee and Associates on locations for the Signs. Helen Carella left 4:37p.m. C. Landscaping and Curbing - Previously discussed V. B. Dale Lewis reported layer of mulch is 1 inch thick on Radio Rd. (Windjammer, along curbing on both sides) Mike McGee will assess the thin layer of mulch. Jim Stephens responded new Mulching will be scheduled for next week (remainder of Radio Road new Projects.) Discussion resumed on approval for the Radio Road Beautification Sign. Dale Lewis moved to approve $3,000.00 plus 20% overrun (for signs.) Second by Betty SchudeL Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. VI. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT - Hannula Jim Stephens reported: • Fertilization will be complete by May 1St • Proposal will be submitted to Staff for Devonshire ROW Sod replacement (due to damage from trenching) • Extensive damage from Base(s) installation (County Street Lighting Project) The Committee expressed concern of a possible delay on irrigation repairs (damage from County Lighting Project.) 0'1 Darryl Richard requested weekly reports from Hannula on part(s) repairs for payment by the County. VII. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REPORT A. McGee & Associates - Mike McGee reported the following: • Weed issues • Muhly and Ornamental grass requires replacement B. Windham Studios - Previously discussed V. B. VIII. OLD BUSINESS None I ►:Vlllllllllll�I OU1 &1113 I0_a.Y.m,I�m- X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS -None M. PUBLIC COMMENT -None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 P.M. Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee ale Lewis, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on 3- - R - , as presented or amended next meeting is May 18, 2010 3:30 p.m. CC Transportation Bldg. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 4 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N O 0 0 0 0 0 O ' O O O O M N N V 01 CO 0 0 (D — 0 LO r v 0 1- r a L i to V ' 6 ' to 0 r — — m' 6 o ' m (D 0 o V O O w o m m 0) 0) O N V N O V n O O O W 00 r w w r O m N V tp a V 0 CO V �- o0 O 0) N V N N N r t` N M O V h O O M p- Lo r V V M N O O M O N N O M C) Q 69 FA E9 69 69 EA 69 69 69 69 O 6G, fA 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 O to EA Go 69 fA fA w O Cl 00 •- O O O O N O N O O V (0 0) cn O O (D O O O N O O M O V ' ' N O t0 C V 0 M O m' n M M' N O O ' O I- ' M N V O O r (D N 0) V (D O O r- O 0) O V I V C 0) C O O N •- co O O to M V a) Cl) N �- N N O 00 E M O O N M N O 69 (9 69 (A t9 U9 69 M O t9 69 64 69 O 69 O E9 O E9 69 69 69 (9 O O Efl EA 11, O U 2 Y U N C 0 C O m m (D O N CL d > m m N (n U v m�+ w C E o c a m m m o Z$ 0 M d (nom 'm = 7 7 7 'O to O w m a N L L L U m 'LM 10 LL 0~ O m O N 2 2 2 E 06 c C f0 2 m U Q Q Q D C U 08 Q o V o U a N � c m m m m m M um, ° m0 O C m C m U U U C C O m C U U U a '6 a m£ N O d "O t m .` m= o m v w n 7m a) m m w w a a1 m y (a % (n = 11 _ LL W J J D d 0 C (n m m J J J Q d w (7 m J O O O O O N m V O � O O O c) LO O 'w O Op V M O r O (0 (0 O (D r)Q(h vornNQN �vQQ vMI-o0 0QQ o�Qo O Z O O M O M O Z O O O O z Z O O M O O O Z Z O M Z O O O O (D O (D m m O O 0) to c0 c0 c0 co 11 c0 O O O O O O c) 0 p .- 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0) O O V O O N V M V Cl) V N 0) 6) M N V V M N N ti m O O T M O �_ N M _V Ih m (M M >O 0) N V V r V O r 1` r M f0 00 O O n M n r CO 1` (D V V O O r M O d M M r U U r O O V V Q a m Cl) Q r- O �� r OO Om ��(n0 n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 (-S d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0> o o> o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O o 0 0 C) o O O O OO(D OOOOOi5 OOM(D OOOOO O O -X) LO O v IT v v v IT v v IT IT IT IT v v v v v v v IT v m 3 Q m 1 g20 �I7EAIto 769I7 ec. 01(9169 69 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 th M N n O 0 0 t9 E9 E9 sfl t9IfAIfA E9 E9 E9 6r►It»��u> E9 E9 69 t9 t9 t9 69 69 69 6F3 69 69 69 03, 691/0169 `91/01691691t9 `41"1641 M1 O m W U Q O C7 u) < w`n w Za C7 =� J O ww w J _ LL Q d (n J Wa. F- O w d' O Z W W m F- m Q J Q U J O F- W J CL W O Q O Z W Ww� a- W ��' OgZQ Q�U QZ_� O_0UW Z U mU ~ F-FZm -J CL OZZ WW WH �'wz wm�zzUU' z( w ? a0�z W MZFw -0U ��O� >UW Iwi�UQ z�< Q0a�?g�PZa UWQ (nWZ OU W m�0? a�QQ m�SZC7(nzx 0} W noOmLU W QW ZYJ ZZO W z 00 LL Nww(f) ZQWZH wxz WQQ >Wx Wa WHO ern m d'V O W j Q M W F- W w W O Q W W i W F- Q OU V Z J Z Q O W O N O Z W J O F- W ~~ W W W W CL C 2 U O LL LL LL LL o LL W U U d' Q Y w U z U Q _1 w ~> Y Q (n (/) W W 0) w M J << m w w W Z Z x w O Z ? x 0 w V m Z~ U D F- Z Q w H. W Z H Z Z U U Z W W ic 0 W~ W W W << Q Q W ga O Z 0 Z 0- J U d Q J Q U w H w H d a d Q� W W Q ciOILL -i??a F F ()U ZF E- w?�Ow?(nn�JdJJOw00 two PmmP. a :Ir N 1") V O t0 h tD 01 O N' '7 O t0 r O O N N N N N N N N N N M M m m M M m m ('O) M v< 69 Ffl 69 E9 64 a) to 69 (9 69 69 (9 EA rn rn rn rn O m m c c c c m > d vi EA EA 69 (9 E9 E9 69 69 69 E9 69 69 69 611 64 W aaao.E u �y £ (0 ` ` 00 m m (0 @ 3 U Z 0 7 7 N N W N w C m O O O Z S C 'a O O W V tD 'O N UNi E C m m (0 c0 (0 (6 rn O C a u) C O Q Q Q N m '� J J J J m x x X U m E (I(S Off U$ 0 m ` N C C C N O V 0) OD a0 ' C O O O m m m 7 7 7 7 0 m F- f0 m 0) N m d 7 (n O L VCI O c. H FT H C C N N >. C C r J C C C C 7 .y O lT D) a O to (6 m m m O 0 0 0 it m m m (0 O N y (0 U U U m O .- QQQ m(LLL LLLLL2222 -)Y�� z =a- Q LO CD O N N Q 0) N V O O (n O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 &0 O O v 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0) (0 O O O O N O 0 0 (0 O th O O t0 O M V O Q O I� O c0 O (O O 0 0 0 c) O O O O O c) Z r o V (D c0 O O M O O— C) �_ N O O M N O w O O O O O O O O) h V O W V O N O O O N O O (n M In d) 0 0 O O N m O O t0 N m N O c0 v 0 £ m V V O 0) N (D O W O ct C 0 W O N V N M V c0 O O at (D r V 0 (Q O M O O W O O I'- M N V M r r O O O N 0) C v N M W N N Q Q � V L V M M M O £ 69 w EA 69 fA 69 w 69 69 69 69 O ft w 69 (9 64 69 69 w w 69 U3 69 69 (9 69 69 69 to 69 69 w u> 69 69 t9 69 69 m N V O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O N O O N O O O O O V O N c0 co a0 (D V O (3) r N O O O O Cl V r r O Cl! N Cl N O O 0) (0 O O O 0) V (0 W c0 1 ' ' O 0) O n O M ' N 0) ' 0 0 0 0 0) (M of O O O O O n O m O Z W RD O O O O O M r W O r- r 0) V O O O O O V O ` M V O M --,d iri N M (O V N O N O M t0 O O- I- r- 1- 00 O O (M M N O r M N N (0— N O r- N po v N w ch N N V c Q d m 3 Q m 1 g20 �I7EAIto 769I7 ec. 01(9169 69 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 th M N n O 0 0 t9 E9 E9 sfl t9IfAIfA E9 E9 E9 6r►It»��u> E9 E9 69 t9 t9 t9 69 69 69 6F3 69 69 69 03, 691/0169 `91/01691691t9 `41"1641 M1 O m W U Q O C7 u) < w`n w Za C7 =� J O ww w J _ LL Q d (n J Wa. F- O w d' O Z W W m F- m Q J Q U J O F- W J CL W O Q O Z W Ww� a- W ��' OgZQ Q�U QZ_� O_0UW Z U mU ~ F-FZm -J CL OZZ WW WH �'wz wm�zzUU' z( w ? a0�z W MZFw -0U ��O� >UW Iwi�UQ z�< Q0a�?g�PZa UWQ (nWZ OU W m�0? a�QQ m�SZC7(nzx 0} W noOmLU W QW ZYJ ZZO W z 00 LL Nww(f) ZQWZH wxz WQQ >Wx Wa WHO ern m d'V O W j Q M W F- W w W O Q W W i W F- Q OU V Z J Z Q O W O N O Z W J O F- W ~~ W W W W CL C 2 U O LL LL LL LL o LL W U U d' Q Y w U z U Q _1 w ~> Y Q (n (/) W W 0) w M J << m w w W Z Z x w O Z ? x 0 w V m Z~ U D F- Z Q w H. W Z H Z Z U U Z W W ic 0 W~ W W W << Q Q W ga O Z 0 Z 0- J U d Q J Q U w H w H d a d Q� W W Q ciOILL -i??a F F ()U ZF E- w?�Ow?(nn�JdJJOw00 two PmmP. a :Ir N 1") V O t0 h tD 01 O N' '7 O t0 r O O N N N N N N N N N N M M m m M M m m ('O) M v< 69 Ffl 69 E9 64 69 69 (9 69 69 (9 EA N vi EA EA 69 (9 E9 E9 69 69 69 E9 69 69 69 611 64 W FA 69 O O W V tD O V 0) OD a0 ' O C ' , 1 , , ' 1 O O O r O O O N m V� r N r O O £ O O N 0) C m r+ V L V M M M O £ O V 69 69 69 EA 69 69 69 EA 69 E9 64 sA N 9 69 b9 f!) 04 69 t9 69 69 U9 69 69 (9 69 69 E9 69 EA E9 0 0 O ' ' O' 0 O 00 00 ' ' C) r- O r 000n0000000000001� o o O o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 C) O G (� O O O O O C) O O O r( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0(D 0 0 0 P v m m OD O (n (v cD O O N (D M O O O tp O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O 0) N N V O 0) V CO N n M Cl) c0 O c0 O) _ co co w m — O O m 3 Q m 1 g20 �I7EAIto 769I7 ec. 01(9169 69 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 th M N n O 0 0 t9 E9 E9 sfl t9IfAIfA E9 E9 E9 6r►It»��u> E9 E9 69 t9 t9 t9 69 69 69 6F3 69 69 69 03, 691/0169 `91/01691691t9 `41"1641 M1 O m W U Q O C7 u) < w`n w Za C7 =� J O ww w J _ LL Q d (n J Wa. F- O w d' O Z W W m F- m Q J Q U J O F- W J CL W O Q O Z W Ww� a- W ��' OgZQ Q�U QZ_� O_0UW Z U mU ~ F-FZm -J CL OZZ WW WH �'wz wm�zzUU' z( w ? a0�z W MZFw -0U ��O� >UW Iwi�UQ z�< Q0a�?g�PZa UWQ (nWZ OU W m�0? a�QQ m�SZC7(nzx 0} W noOmLU W QW ZYJ ZZO W z 00 LL Nww(f) ZQWZH wxz WQQ >Wx Wa WHO ern m d'V O W j Q M W F- W w W O Q W W i W F- Q OU V Z J Z Q O W O N O Z W J O F- W ~~ W W W W CL C 2 U O LL LL LL LL o LL W U U d' Q Y w U z U Q _1 w ~> Y Q (n (/) W W 0) w M J << m w w W Z Z x w O Z ? x 0 w V m Z~ U D F- Z Q w H. W Z H Z Z U U Z W W ic 0 W~ W W W << Q Q W ga O Z 0 Z 0- J U d Q J Q U w H w H d a d Q� W W Q ciOILL -i??a F F ()U ZF E- w?�Ow?(nn�JdJJOw00 two PmmP. a :Ir N 1") V O t0 h tD 01 O N' '7 O t0 r O O N N N N N N N N N N M M m m M M m m ('O) M v< 161 1B2 0 May 18, 2010 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Radio Road MSTU Proiect Report (R -22) - ON HOLD — DEVONSHIRE shrub REFURBISHMENT; 7- 21 -09: Proposal is submitted for Committee review to install new shrubs — now that new drip line has been installed: Total Project cost estimated per contract 09 -5111R rates: $8,700.00; 8- 25 -09: Committee agrees with recommendation from Consultant (McGee) to hold off on planting shrubs for areas where we have known issues with tree roots. (This condition applies to many of the areas with shrubs dying back) (R -18) - ACTIVE: RADIO ROAD PHASE III PROJECT (Livingston Rd. to Airport Pulling; Windham Studios (PO 4500105824) 01- 19 -10: Bids received BONNESS INC. $354,673.10; PART B LAND. & IRG. HANNULA LANDSCAPE INC. $224,588.22 (with alternates #2 and #3 selected) TOTAL PART A & PART B: $579,261.32 (Note: $410,879.50 available in Capital Outlay); Budget Amendment is necessary in order to recognize `carryforward' to pay for project. 05- 14 -10: Notice to Proceed sent for May 17, 2010; 120 day contract (R -15) - ACTIVE: RADIO ROAD PHASE II -B & Phase I -A (II -B is from Kings Way /Briarwood Entry to Tina Lane); (I -A is from Devonshire to Santa Barbara) SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE: 02 -11 -2010 FINAL COMPLETION DATE: 03 -13 -2010 01- 19 -10: "Lane Closure Fees" totaling $8,000 have been paid by Fund 112 04- 20 -10: Final Completion date revised to May 27, 2010 05- 18 -10: Additional time extension is anticipated for revised Completion Date of June 20, 2010. (R -19) — ON GOING: MAINTENANCE CONSULTING CONTRACT 8- 25 -09: Ongoing Maintenance Consulting Services from McGee & Associates; LA Services Contract to be reviewed in the Fall for BVO or rotation per `agreement letter' with Radio Road MSTU. 04- 20 -10: Committee to approved Proposal by Windham Studios for maintenance consulting. 05- 17 -10: Work Order is in process of being issued to Windham Studios to start June 1, 2010. (R -14) — ON GOING: MAINTENCE CONTRACT — BID# 09 -5111R -- "Radio Road Beautification MSTD/MSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance" 8- 25 -09: Hannula maintenance Contract #09 -5111 R — Ongoing with 3 one year renewal periods 05- 18 -10: Staff will meet with Purchasing and Hannula on May 26, 2010 to review contract. Radio Road Landscape And Irrigation Project Phases IIB And IA Bid Number 09 -5244 Change Order Number Three Date: May 3, 2010 RPM # otv Svm. Description 161 T, 20 Spec Unit Cost Total - - - - -- -- -- - - - -- Phase I -A $ - 45 -5 TC Tabebuia "ch santha" 12-15'3" $ 211.00 $ 1,055.00 Yellow Trumpet Tree $ - C/O 5 TC Tabebuia "ch scotricha" Golden .12-15'3" $ 211.00 $ 1,055.00 Trumpet tree $ - 50 30 FM Ficus "Green Island" 3 gal 14" $ 6.00 $ 180.00 Plans vs. Bid Schedule 53 -98 EM Eu horbia milii 1/3 Mix 1 gal 6" $ 3.80 $ 372.40 Field Adjust Spacing Sheet LD -16 53 -297 EM Eu horbia milii 1/3 Mix 3 gal 14" $ 3.80 $ 1,128.60 Field Adjust Spacing Sheet LS -17 53 -112 EM Eu horbia milii 1/3 Mix 3 gal 14" $ 3.80 $ 425.60 Field Adjust Spacing Sheet LS18 47 -3 VW Veitchia Winin Palm 10'CT $ 210.00 $ 630.00 C/O 3 VM Veitchia Montgorneryana Palm 10'CT $ 210.00 $ 630.00 59 & 60 -2 Toro XP340 -HP -XX 12" High pop-up Ea $ 50.45 $ 100.90 Plans vs. Bid Schedule 59 1 C5 -03 Add 1 Toro 340 Head So. Side Ea. $ 50.45 $ 50.45 Between 3rd. & 4th. Royal Palms $ - 60 1 C5 -03 Add 1 Toro 300 Head No Side Ea. $ 50.45 $ 50.45 West Of Last Royal Palm $ - C/O 1 Relocate 8 Side Strip Heads Field L.S. $ 200.00 $ 200.00 Adjust To Center Of Median At Sta. 254 +80 C/O 1 Add End Strip 570 Head At Sta. Ea. $ 26.88 $ 26.88 254 +82 Phase II -B 7 1 QV Live Oak 16x9 -10' $ 338.00 $ 338.00 12 -1 RR Ro stonia elata Florida Royal Palm 10' CT $ 254.00 $ 254.00 23 -31 EM Eu horbia milii 1/3 Mix Field Adjust 1 gal 6" $ 3.80 $ 117.80 Sheet 2B -5 23 -117 EM Eu horbia milii 1/3 Mix Field Adjust 1 gal 6" $ 3.80 $ 446.60 Sheet 2B -7 23 -237 EM Eu horbia milii 1/3 Mix Field Adjust 1 gal 6" $ 3.80 $ 900.60 Sheet 2B -9 23 -236 EM I Eu horbia milii 1/3 Mix Field Adjust 1 gal 6" $ 3.80 $ 896.80 Sheet 2B -10 23 -139 EM Eu horbia milii 1/3 Mix Field Adjust 1 gal 6" $ 3.80 $ 528.20 Sheet 2B -11 23 -87 EM Eu horbia milii 1/3 Mix Field Adjust 1 gal 6" $ 3.80 $ 330.60 Sheet 2B -12 23 -73 EM Eu horbia milii 1/3 Mix Field Adjust 1 gal 6" $ 3.80 $ 277.40 Sheet 2B -13 13 -6 VW Veitchia Winin Palm 10' CT $ 205.00 $ 1,230.00 C/O 6 VM Veitchia Montgomeryana Palm 10' CT $ 205.00 $ 1,230.00 31 7 Toro XP340 -HP -XX 12" High pop-up Ea $ 50.45 $ 353.15 Plans vs. Bid Schedule 16: F IB2 0 32 1 75 7,060.93 Toro 570Z- PRX -12P, 12" High Pop -Up Ea. $ 26.88 $ 2,016.00 $ 5,327.35 Plans vs. Bid Schedule 32 -6 Toro 570Z- PRX -12P, 12" High Pop -Up Ea. $ 26.88 $ 161.28 Field Adjust Per Actual Amt. Installed 33 34 Irritrol 533 Flood Bubbler Ea. $ 13.30 $ 452.20 Install (2) Per Tree. Bid Schedule (162) And Two Per Tree Equals (192) 32 36 Install (36) Irritrol 533 Flood Bubblers Ea. $ 13.30 $ 478.80 Per Work Directive 3 -12 -10 33 -225 Sleeving Directional Bore 4" L. Ft. $ 15.70 $ 3,532.50 $ - $ - $ - Total Additions $ 7,060.93 Total Deletions $ 12,388.28 Net Change_ $ 5,327.35 By: Hannula Landscaping And Irrigation, Inc. 1611 B20 ' HANNULA LANDSCAPING & IRRIGATION, INC. PROPOSAL PROJECT RADIO ROAD MSTU - (4) AUGERED HOLES DATE May 18, 2010 ITEM QTY DESCRIPTION SPECIFICATIONS TOTAL COST 4 Auger 24" Hole PER HOLE 6'x10 "PVE Filter Fabric Drain Rock MOT TOTAL $1,400.00 w4m & 04,,,e4 #,1611 82 0 ' May 3, 2010 Mr. Darryl Richard, Project Manager Collier County Traffic Operations and Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Subject: Radio Road Median 8 Irrigation Renovation Phase 118 services as pernAled by the Food Term/ Professional Landscape Architectural Services Contract d08- 5060, Request for Fiscal Year 10/11 fcx Radio Road U.S T.tl, 2W6- 025PRMODI Dew Mr. Richard: The following is presented for your review and approval. Due to the time extensions granted to the contractors, we will need to request the iioaowir* for end POP 4500104739: 1) A time extension to 06130/2010 and additional hours as ksted below Unit Rabe Cost Principal /Senior Landscape Architect 30 $128.00 $3840.00 (Tlrns & M ) Technic*VCADD 3 $62.00 $186.00 M" f ) Admirdstrabive 6 $55.00 $330.00 (Time a ) Total: $4,336.00 Total amount of work orb modificatlon request. ........... $4,=.00 K you have any questions or need further information, please feel tree to contact our otttce any tirrMm. We we lad ft forward to working with your deparbnent while improving and maint ng our nays. 0 ' �10o' Michael A. McGee , i.s.s. President, Associates, LC 098 Design * Emitronnwntai Mar "onvont * Platin g * ilrt 5079 Tamiatri TmN East ! P. O. Box 0M HoW, Florida 34101 PhorM (239) 417.0707 • fax (239) 417 LC 098 ` FL 1023A 1611 92011 SIGNCRAFT QUOTATION 3661 MERCANTILE "E. NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 CELL (239)293 -0503 OFFICE (239) 643 -1777 ext. 203 FAX (239) 643 -2499 DATE: May 17, 2010 TO: David Julien COMPANY: McGee & Associates PHONE: 252 -6291 EMAIL: PamelaLulich @colliergov.net FROM: Kara Crooks- Kaleta We are pleased to quote as follows: (1) 5'6 "H x 4 "'W Sign .063 Aluminum painted Tan With Vinyl copy and printed logo decal Mounted on (2) 4 "x4 "x 9'6 "aluminum posts With Round Ball Finial post caps $650.00 plus Tax PLEASE NOTE THAT A 50% DEPOSIT IS REQUIRED AT TIME OF ORDER. BALANCE MUST BE PAID WHEN INSTALLED. CUSTOMERS SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME Kara Crooks Kara Crooks SALES CONTRACT THE ABOVE INSTALLATION IS FIGURED ON SAND SOIL DIGGING CONDITIONS - IF ROCKS OR OTHER OBSTACLES ARE ENCOUNTERED, THERE WILL BE EXTRA CHARGES AS DETERMINED BY THE SELLER. THIS ORDER IS NOT SUBJECT TO CANCELLATION, SINCE IT CALLS FOR MADE TO MEASURE GOODS. ALL AGREEMENTS ARE MADE SUBJECT TO STRIKES AND OTHER CAUSES OF DELAY OR INABILITY TO PERFORM WHICH ARE BEYOND SELLERS CONTROL IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT THE MERCHANDISE COVERED BY THIS CONTRACT SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE SELLER UNTIL FULLY PAID FOR, AND THE PURCHASER HEREBY SPECIFICALLY AGREES THAT IF, UPON DEMAND, SAID PURCHASER DOES NOT PAY BALANCE DUE ON THIS CONTRACT, THE SELLER AT ANY TIME THEREAFTER MAY ENTER SAID PREMISES AND REMOVE SAID MERCHANDISE, RETAINING AS LIQUIDATION DAMAGES ALL MONIES PREVIOUSLY PAID ON ACCOUNT. IF ANY PAYMENT DUE SELLER IS NOT MADE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF ITS DUE DATE, PURCHASER WAIVES ALL RIGHTS TO GUARANTEES AND WARRANTIES. PURCHASER AGREES THAT IN THE EVENT SELLER RETAINS AN ATTORNEY TO ENFORCE ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CONTRACT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PAYMENT THEREOF, HE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM PURCHASER ALL COSTS INCURRED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE. 1611 g20' 5/18/10 Proposed project identification sign locations. West End Location "A" Median 14 at Livingston Rd West End Location "B" Median 15 one median east of Livingston Rd. East End Location "A" Median 30 at Santa Barbara East End Location "B" Median 28 one median east of Devonshire Blvd. N N N 1611 B2.1 --t7 8 • Q7Intat rLANa ANU ItUHNICAL DRAWINGS REMAIN THE COPYRIGHT PROPERTY OF THE DESIGNER. NO PART OF THESE DRAWINGS MAY BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED OR BUILT OR USED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF McGee AG Asyocictes "C' 2009- 9 N P 4 � j ; `# COLLIER COUNTY BOARD 01= COUNTY GOMMISSION)±R5 ��'!� / /��C�/�_ _ � ��Q� ` /%� �,� RADIO ROAD MSTU STREET5GAPE BEAUTIFfGATION Landscape Architecture • 11, MlOW A. MW— rlo. SHEET TITLE DESIGN ENNRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT •PLANNING ila Lk. LA ew o PROJECT SIGN '5079 Tomtaml Troll Eaet . Naplw. Florida 34113 o. M. f LC 0➢e Phase: (239) 417 -0707 F= (239) 417 -0708 pate _ I Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Fiala • Advisory Committee Halal 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 Hennin4 Coyle Coletta AUG 2 4 2010 August 17, 2010 G_urjjy Commissioners AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: May 18, 2010 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report- Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - Hannula VII. Landscape Architect's Report A. McGee & Associates — Phase II -B and I -A Completion B. Windham Studio — Phase III Project & Maintenance VIII. Old Business IX. New Business X. Committee Member Comments XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment The next meeting is September 21, 2010 3:30 p.m. CC Transportation Bldg. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 16�� B 2o Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee A2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 May 18, 2010 Minutes 1611 R20" I. The meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 3:37 PM. II. ATTENDANCE Members: Dale Lewis, Betty Schudel, Bill Jaeger (Absent), Helen Carella, John Weber County: Darryl Richard- Project Manager, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager Others: Mike McGee -McGee & Associates, Scott Windham - Windham Studio, Jim Stephens - Hannula Landscaping, Sue Chapin -Radio Road East MSTU, Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Add: V. C. Grass in Medians Betty Schudel moved to approve the agenda as amended Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 20, 2010 Change: Pg 2, V. B., (R -15) bullet two, should read: Replacement of Royal Palms is "rescheduled" due to effectfrom cold weather. Dale Lewis moved to approve the April 20, 2010 minutes as amended Second by Helen Carella. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Budget Report - Caroline Soto Darryl Richard announced Caroline Soto was reassigned to the CAT Department (Collier Area Transit.) He introduced Gloria Herrera as the Budget Analyst for the MSTU Committees. Darryl Richard reviewed the following: (See attached) o Capital Outlay Commitments $567,902.51 includes Phase III Contract as outlined: - Hannula Landscaping $203,062.02 (Part B Landscaping) - Bonness $333,753.68 (Part A Curbing) - Contractor Mobilization will be conducted simultaneously 1611 620 - Project completion anticipated within 120 days in lieu of 240 days o Available Capital Improvement $225,929.60 Dale Lewis reaffirmed utilizing the projected FYI 0 -11 Carry Forward monies for current Project activity was approved by BCC. B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard gave the following information: (See attached) (R -15) Radio Road Phase II -B & Phase I -A o Contract was extended to June 30'h due to installation of Royal Palm replacements o Traffic Light installation (by the Circle K) is impeding the progress on the Project - Anticipates completion of Traffic Light installation by mid June Discussion took place concerning a Police vehicles parking in the Medians. Dale Lewis perceived the Sheriffs Department should be billed for damage caused by Police vehicles parking in the medians. o (Bid 09 -5244) Change Order Number Three (See attached) - Net decrease of $5,327.35 was noted Mike McGee clarified the Change Order consist of Plant Material and Sprinkler Head quantity adjustments. Devonshire and Santa Barbara o Median irrigation leak may be caused by Control Clock (stuck valve) - Ag TRONIX will be notified o Compacted Lime Rock is present in the Median - Submitted a Proposal $1,400.00 (Hannula Landscaping) for PVC installation (in Median) to promote percolation - The $1,400.00 monies will be back out from Change Order Number Three ($5,327.35 Net decrease) Dale Lewis moved to accept (Hannula) Bid for (4) 24 inch holes to be used for French Drain. Second by John Weber. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Dale Lewis moved to accept the (Hannula) Change Order (Number 3) per Mike McGee's recommendation. Second by Helen Carella. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. (R -14) Maintenance Contract o Meeting is scheduled with Hannula Landscaping and Purchasing for Contract review 2 An 2 o Noted if a contractual issue exists the Contractor is permi R tted to renegotiate the Contract (with Purchasing) o During renegotiation if an agreement on terms cannot be met the Contract will go out for rebid Dale Lewis expressed dissatisfaction with neglected Medians (by Windjammer, Circle K, and Meadow Lakes Apartments.) He suggested initiating a separate Contract (Landscape Maintenance) if the Contract goes out for rebid. Mike McGee stated: • Hannula Landscape Division was advised hand removal of weeds is required (2 weeks prior) • Recommended a pre- emergent be applied subsequently • Hand removal of weeds is scheduled 5 -17 -10 (advised by Jim Stephens) Staff will relay Committee comments to Purchasing for consideration during Contract review with Hannula. Dale Lewis requested a report from Staff regarding the meeting with Purchasing and Hannula. (R -14) Maintenance Consulting Contract • McGee and Associates Proposal was submitted for additional Services $4,356.00 (See attached) • Additional field time was due to Project extensions Dale Lewis moved to pay the increase to Mike McGee ($4,356.00.) Second by Betty SchudeL Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. C. Grass in Medians - Previously discussed under V.B. VI. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT - Hannula Jim Stephens reported: Devonshire County Street Lighting Project • Project is close to completion • Extensive Irrigation repairs were required • Lack of Irrigation resulted in Sod damage • Reengineering is required to install additional Irrigation heads around slabs (light base) Mike McGee recommended replacing the existing sod as 60% — 80% is damaged. Darryl Richard confirmed repair estimates will be presented to Traffic Operations for payment as damage resulted from the County Lighting Project. 3 1611820 VII. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REPORT A. McGee & Associates — Mike McGee reported the following: o Replacement of Warranty Materials (Landscape) is complete (excluding 1 Sable Palm) Darryl Richard stated Devonshire Trees require thinning and a quote will be provided at the August 17, 2010 meeting. Discussion ensued concerning spending monies for Devonshire Tree trimming ($30,000.00) on Trees that ultimately will be removed. After much discussion the following was concluded: • An evaluation of existing Trees is needed • To install the new Hedge and plant Trees simultaneously (Belville to Appleby) B. Windham Studio Scott Windham stated Windham Studio will attend meetings when (Phase III) Project begins. VIII. OLD BUSINESS -None IX. NEW BUSINESS A. Summer Meeting Schedule The Committee was in agreement to cancel the June and July meetings. Discussion redeveloped on Devonshire Tree and Hedge Project (Belville to Appleby.) Mike McGee estimated the Project cost at Project $30,000.00 - $50,000.00. Dale Lewis noted $34,000.00 was earmarked for the Project. John Weber perceived a clear understanding of the Project is needed (by the Public) to avoid 90% of problems. After discussion it was concluded Scott Windham will give a visual presentation at a future Association meeting (September.) The meeting will be Publicly advertized and the Radio Road MSTU Committee and Staff will attend. Mike McGee presented proposed locations for the Radio Road Streetscape Beautification Signs. (See attached) After review the Committee selected West B and East B for the Sign locations. A Signcraft quote for the Radio Road Streetscape Beautification Sign was submitted ($650.00 per sign.) (See attached) Dale Lewis moved to recommend sign installation and manufacture of the signs not to exceed $2,000.00 and install as soon as possible. Second by Betty Schudei. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. 4 1 X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS —None XI. PUBLIC COMMENT Sue Chapin thanked the Committee for their support at the Radio Road MSTU Public Meeting. She reported interviews will take place in July with (5) Landscape Architect Firms and Project activity will begin on a small scale (corner of Radio Road to Santa Barbara.) She welcomed the opportunity to act as liaison for the Radio Road East MSTU. There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:14 P.M. Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee .y Dale Lewis, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented__A_or amended The next meeting is August 17, 2010 3:30 p.m. CC Transportation Bldg. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 5 H O US US N � a Z w OLL 3 O � � a O a LL 00o MN.- O O p Op ' oM N oW �o(OpD o NnGy`°p �o�r°OO °o °o no y O S S W Nm O Q O N O M pm n N M 6 6 O r m 0 0 CCpD O 1 -------------------- H H H-------- N � ry e a' ------------------------------- 0 if 00o MN.- O O p Op ' oM N oW �o(OpD o NnGy`°p �o�r°OO °o °o no y O 161 1 O M pm n No CD 0 N 1 -------------------- H H H-------- N � ry e ------------------------------- 0 if 2 r_mn_00_ci w W m M o o UU O�L O1 m°D w mm5 o anm zc t2 Um'E.EJ �Ea1mQ cmc m v Z QQo`a`m amm "m C — C F m° yEE amSE LLr m C C W m c W2 8a ooI 'sA �� °a a�mc9In �.. , o ;zoo o O o �. M Q M UI S S M N Q N O Q Q V M O O � Z N 0 o d d o 0 0 0 0 .a d o 0 0 0 0 0 ro 0 0 p I M N N �f1 h �CtOI N m M N tM�l U Y r S M T S N O V g yyr inn rnn M aD H o nM r mr M pia e V �� °D mo SJ a a v v v v e v a v v v v e v a a a v v v v a e aYi W W W W Z c X x Q Ki E E F- f H V D Y Y U a Q Q m E LL. ILL Imi lai S 2 x= — Y r1 Z R' d y O O YI O O O S O O 6. O O v a&.,. O O O O O t0 O O O O 0 O N �- O � � O V � O y 0 0 0 0 0 Ol fpfOpppD W � h m N 1a♦7 � � N f°O in N Om � O OOOCD N O YN S v0 00w5 n N m N n m ` � O � �- � .M_. N... • m O O ---- HHHHHH- HHHMMMHMHHHHHp 9 HHHHH �Y�p �n N �CNpD O T S OOi < O p O aS� .0 S Y C�Cpp O N S N O m CD r S ' S CWD W< °M Q m H H H H H H H H H H H --------------- �o W M o �n W gNg S�oI�H°oo °olol So°SnSSOSSS°o°°°°SSSr°. � °H° M n o S o °(O M °n °N N r O N °r ° °°to N °M °0 O °0 O O°I °N ° °N ° °Y S 0 n O Ili N O D p .E D O m S ;: o o O r o O O O o o o o m m in ;1a 00 y W f S 0 N v m v HHHH« ,�H�HHHHH�H�.�HHHHHHHHHHHH...1. .�HH� »H�H z Om w U a w O Ir W J J W > W Z 2 W F 5. U w o W O Z _ C ww z Q z W V a a w w X K y U y� g U Z W w me� F- -< !6 J O H W W O � O Z W W W a x W LL 7 F o R Z Q Oo Q 2- O o w W z U U F WW2z,w8siiarc°x >U W.<80;!w! �OO z�5 - gw�Z- og�?aN`� >Qz a °moo a O? Kaa ¢.e w f O Kw w ¢w!-jJ zz0.o 0 0 o z z � w z r m ¢ m w z w z w a w U W w a Q w R K N K a o- o K d Q > y rc a Z m 0 LL m W >>S WNW W WLLO LLO W W QC7 W 8- W w W oW Hx W Q F H W 2 W y» � W 2 Y W x U Z N a N o QLL F' > Y a F LL F- F LL >> D J F W W> z z ,w w U' 2 C7 X 2 2 W O K? J Z Z �� a Q Z� 0 Z Vl W� c�iaaZZ'�UC�zH.How?-w.nM3a --8w o�woPi — mm...mw a M a o 0 O N M T E E M E o v 3333 M w al 1611 R20" August 17, 2010 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Radio Road MSTU Proiect Report (R-22) - ON HOLD — DEVONSHIRE shrub REFURBISHMENT; 7 -21 -09: Proposal is submitted for Committee review to install new shrubs — now that new drip line has been installed: Total Project cost estimated per contract 09 -5111R rates: $8,700.00; 8- 25-09: Committee agrees with recommendation from Consultant (McGee) to hold off on planting shrubs for areas where we have known issues with tree roots. (This condition applies to many of the areas with shrubs dying back) (R-18) - ACTIVE: RADIO ROAD PHASE III PROJECT (Livingston Rd. to Airport Pulling; Windham Studios (PO 4500105824) 01- 19 -10: Bids received BONNESS INC. $354,673.10; PART B LAND. & IRG. HANNULA LANDSCAPE INC. $224,588.22 (with alternates #2 and #3 selected) TOTAL PART A & PART B: $579,26132 (Note: $410,879.50 available in Capital Outlay); Budget Amendment is necessary in order to recognize `carryforward' to pay for project. 05- 14 -10: Notice to Proceed sent for May 17, 2010; 120 day contract (R-15) - ACTIVE: RADIO ROAD PHASE II B & Phase I -A (II-B is from Kings Way/Briarwood Entry to Tina Lane); (I -A is from Devonshire to Santa Barbara) SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE: 02 -11 -2010 FINAL COMPLETION DATE: 03 -13 -2010 08- 17 -10: Final Completion pending work completion at Circle K (due to cross -walk) (R -19) — ON GOING: MAINTENANCE CONSULTING CONTRACT 8 -25 -09: Ongoing Maintenance Consulting Services from McGee & Associates; LA Services Contract to be reviewed in the Fall for BVO or rotation per `agreement letter' with Radio Road MSTU. 08- 17 -10: Windham Studios under contract for maintenance consulting (R-14) — ON GOING: MAINTENCE CONTRACT — BID# 09 -5111R -- "Radio Road Beautification MSTD/MSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance" 08- 17 -10: Hannula request price increase per Phase II -B, I -A, and (pending completion) Phase III 08- 17 -10: Staff review of proposed price increase in process. CHANGE ORDER NO. CO #1 (ONE) TO: Attn: Dale Hannula Hannula Landscaping Incorporated 28131 Quails Nest Ln Bonita Springs, FL 34135 "mall R20�' CHANGE ORDER CONTRACT NO._ BID:09 -5111 R BCC Date: 12 -02 -08 Agenda Item: 16B9 FROM: ATM Department DATE: August 1, 2010 ROJECT NAME: Contract 09 -5111 R Radio Road MSTU /MSTD Roadway Grounds Maintenance Contract PROJECT NO.: P.O. #4500111963 Under our AGREEMENT dated _ December 2, 2008 You hereby are authorized and directed to make the following change(s) in accordance with terms and conditions of the Agreement: Changes are related to: UNIT COST CHANGES: Change is to adjust unit cost factors due to installation of additional landscaping and irrigationper. Unit Cost adjustment is justified due to change in work scope related to each item. QUANTITY CHANGES: Change in quantities is to field verification of quantities per installation of Phase II B, I -A, and Phase III Project. Describe the change(s): This change order will: UNIT PRICE CHANGES: CHANGE ITEM Description Original Unit New Unit Total (annual change) Percent Change ® INCREASE #2 Weeding $150.00 EA. $245.00 EA. $ 4,940.00 +63.33% ® INCREASE #3 General Site Pruning $125.00 EA. $225.00 EA. $ 5,200.00 +80.00% ® INCREASE #4a Weekly Irrigation Sys. $200.00 EA. $275.00 EA. $ 3,900.00 +37.50% ® INCREASE #4b Monthly Irrigation Sys. $35.00 EA. $70.00 EA. $ 420.00 +100.00% ® INCREASE #15 Sequestrene Drench. $250.00 EA. $375.00 EA. $ 420.00 +50.00% ® INCREASE #16 20 -20-20 - Ferromec $150.00 EA. $250.00 EA. $ 100.00 +66.67% ® INCREASE #17a Insecticides /Fungicides$200.00 EA. $250.00 EA. $ 50.00 +25.00% ® INCREASE #18a Herbicides $200.00 Fro. $250.00 EA. $ 50.00 +25.00% ® DECREASE #17b Turf Insecticides/Fungicides $200.00 EA. $250.00 EA. $ 50.00 +25.00% ® DECREASE #18b Turf: Herbicides $200.00 EA. $250.00 EA. $ 50.00 +25.00% . 1611820 QUANTITY CHANGES: (note: "Unit Cost" for these items do not change) CHANGE ITEM Description Original QTY. New QTY. Total (annual) Percent Change ® INCREASE #7 Pruning Canopy Trees 89 158 $100.00 +77.53% ® INCREASE #8 Palm Pruning 42 141 $990.00 +235.71% ® INCREASE #13 Fertilizer 8-2 -12 128 166 $123.50 +29.69% ® INCREASE #14 So- Po-Mag 4 7 $15.00 +75.00% NET CHANGE: $16,082.50 (annually) +15.35% Net % FOR THE Additive (DeEblelim Sum of: 16.082.50 Original Agreement Amount $104.741.50 Sum of Previous Changes $0 This Change Order to INCREASE $ 16,082.50 Present Agreement Amount $120,824.00 (Includes change The time for completion shall be (increase/deeFeaw) by 0 calendar days due to this Change Order. Accordingly, the Contract Time is now one thousand four hundred sixtydays (1,460 ) [note: this contract has one initial year with 3 renewals — based on 3 renewals total contract period is to 12- 05 -12] calendar days. The substantial completion date is on Wednesday, December 5, 2012 the final completion date is Wednesday, December 5, 2012 Your acceptance of this Change Order shall constitute a modification to our Agreement and will be performed subject to all the same terms and conditions as contained in our Agreement indicated above, as fully as if the same were repeated in this acceptance. The adjustment, if any, to the Agreement shall constitute a full and final settlement of any and all claims of the Contractor arising out of or related to the change set forth herein, including claims for impact and delay costs. Accepted: CONTRACTOR: Hannula Landscape & Irrigation Inc. 920 Authorized Corporate Officer, Hannula Landscape & Irrigation Inc. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONSULTANT By: Scott Windham, RLA, Windham Studios By: In By: OWNER: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROJECT MANGER Darryl Richard LANDSCAPE OPERATIONS MANAGER Pam Lulich DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR Michelle Edwards Arnold, ATM Dept. M. 16! 1 R20� DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR Norm Feder, AICP, Administrator, Growth Management Division CONTRACT SPECIALIST Rhonda Cummings, Contracts Specialist 1611 gp 0"I MAINTENANCE REPORT To: Radio Road MSTU Advisory Committee Company: Daryl Richard, Collier County ATM From: Scott Windham Date: August 17, 2010 RE: Radio Road Monthly Maintenance Report MSTU Committee and Staff: The following is a report of the general conditions and recommendations for the maintenance of the Radio Road MSTU areas as related to the site walk through on 8/17/10: • Mike Anderson will be the new maintenance foreman for Hannula landscaping. • Upon field review, in general, the project areas look healthy and well maintained. • A few observations are as follows: • The new sod at median 28 needs to be closely monitored as it establishes to avoid weed intrusion. • Devonshire new ROW sod has taken for the most part though some areas appear patchy. Watch closely to insure proper establishment and replace as needed. • Crown of Thorns bed at the tip of median 5 needs to be re- mulched. There is currently almost no mulch in the bed. • The disturbed area in median 18 where the traffic light was recently completed will be excavated, re- filled and planted with the Crown of Thorns mix by Fri, 8/20 according to Hannula. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Thank you, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000 -1516 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: Scott @ windhamstudlio.com x «x7\-- N-, indhamstudio.com 1611- 620 STATUS REPORT To: Radio Road MSTU Advisory Committee Company: Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM From: Scott Windham Date: August 17, 2010 RE: Radio Road Phase 3 Curbing, Irrigation and Planting Construction Progress Committee and team: The following is a brief progress report for the Radio Road Phase 3 Curbing, Irrigation and Planting construction: Construction Progress: • Bonness will complete the curbing and soil preparation scope by the end of this week, Fri, 8/20. The substantial completion walk through is scheduled for next Tues, 8/24. • Hannula will complete irrigation installation by 8/27. • Hannula will flag all large trees and palms for review by WSI on Tues, 8/24. • Hannula will then begin installation of large material by 8/27 and shrubs, ground covers and mulch by 9/17. • The target Substantial completion date for landscape and irrigation is 9/30 with the final completion date being 10130. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Thank you, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000 -1516 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott @«tindhamstudio.com wwx .u-indhamstudio.com March 4, 2010 1 .21 ng -- U a - 1 2010 (` CQnlmissiQiierJ d of noun ��i�t A A4,S..YJL Advisory GormmeNtee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order 11. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes:. February 4, 2010 V. Budget Report- Caroline Soto VI. Utilities Report- Charles Arthur VII. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard A. FY -2011 Budget Review and Approval VIII. Landscape Maintenance Report-CLM IX. Old Business X. Update Report A. Maintenance — Bruce Forman B. Tax Analysis — Bud Martin XI. New Business X11. Public Comment XII1. Adjournment The next meeting is April 1, 2010 at 2:00 P.M. ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CEINTIER 625 111 T" Ave. Naples, FL. Misc. Corres* Date: d a. < 0 item #: I (�-„ 0 111 Ito: ED 16 11 P 2010 Cr ;n� ,��E� (emu ;:1 to sr and un4Y commissioners in 11INUA Advisory Ooimamittae 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 April 1, 2010 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: March 4, 2010 V. Budget Report- Caroline Soto VI. Utilities Report- Charles Arthur VII. Project Manager Report- Darryl Richard VIII. Landscape Maintenance Report-CLM IX. Old Business X. Update Report A. Maintenance — Bruce Forman B. Tax Analysis — Bud Martin XI. New Business XII. Public Comment XI11. Adjournment The next meeting is May 6, 2010 at 2:00 P.M. ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625 111 T" Ave. Naples, FL. Misc. Cares: Date: Item #: Ccnies to: May 6, 2010 A A r C r� 161 �� 11in -iA - 1 2010 �Cvie _.._ SEp � c i� tta �t 118aleA M.S.T ifte Advisory Conlomittaa 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 - AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order 11. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: April 1, 2010 V. Budget Report- Caroline Soto VI. Utilities Report- Charles Arthur VII. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard VIII. Landscape Maintenance Report-CLM IX. Old Business X. Update Report A. Maintenance — Bruce Forman B. Tax Analysis — Bud Martin XI. New Business XII. Public Comment XII1. Adjournment The next meeting is June 3, 2010 at 2:00 P.M. ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625 111 T" Ave. Naples, FL. Misc. Comes: Date: Item #: copies to: 16I�. ''B2 "1 � VaNdaBieE 8"CA �bt,S.1.N. Advisory Oorwomittaa 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 February 4, 2010 MINUTES I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order by Charles Arthur at 2:00 p.m. II. Attendance Members: Bud Martin, Charles Arthur, Bruce Forman (Excused), Bill Gonnering County: Darryl Richard — MSTU Project Manager, Caroline Soto - Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich - Landscape Operations Manager Others: Chris Tilman — Malcolm Pirnie, Jim Fritchey — CLM, Dick Lydon — Applicant, Joe Foster - Public, Darlene Lafferty — Kelly Services III. Approval of Agenda Bill Gonnering moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — January 7, 2010 Change: Pg. 2, W., paragraph 2 should read: After discussion the Committee was in agreement to continue with the original Switch Box in lieu of the New Design "due to the additional cost of $70, 000.00 per unit" for the new design. The Committee requested the following statement be added to the Minutes "It was estimated 7 units would be needed in Phase I." Bud Martin moved to approve the minutes of January 7, 2010 as amended. Second by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Budget Report — Caroline Soto reviewed the following: (See attached) • Received Ad Valorem Tax $158,043.80 • Operating Expense open P.O. $115,218.39 • Noted comments are to be emailed to Darryl Richard on the Adjusted Balance Sheet (See attached) Bud Martin expressed displeasure in receiving less than 1 % percent on Investment Interest. * 1611 VI. Utilities Report- Charles Arthur reported: (See attached) B2 Channel Drive (Pilot Project) • Transformers and Transformer Boxes were in place and some are missing - FPL has reassured there is sufficient equipment available to complete the job • Comcast Installation is complete • The walk through with FPL was less than satisfactory due to the request (by FPL) of adding dimensions for (Transformer) Box clearances - Redefining dimensions will require easement acquisition - Subsequent review with FPL for each location in question was conducted Darryl Richard reported: • RWA Exhibits were requested for each (Transformer Box) location that is under review (See attached) • RWA, John Lehr, Michelle Arnold, and Kate Donofrio will attend the next meeting with FPL Chris Tilman confirmed the center line was marked and caps are in place (by RWA.) VII. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard reported: (See attached) (VA -32) Conversion of 35 Properties to Underground • Notification Letter to (35) Property Owners were mailed (See attached) • Delivery confirmation was received for approximately half of the Certified Letters that were mailed • A second attempt will be made to contact the remaining Property owners via 2nd Notification Letter and telephone call • Electrical Bid Documents were prepared by Malcolm Pirnie - Bids will be open to all Electricians for competitive Bidding - BCC approval will not be required as it was anticipated the Bids will be under $50,000.00 - Bids are due in 21 days • Contact Information was received by approximately half of the Property Owners (See attached) VA -27) Phase I "Underoround Facilities Conversion Aareement" • Cost estimate is required by Corp of Engineers to include the 25% price reduction • Phase I Project: List of Properties was distributed (See attached) VIII. Landscape Maintenance Report-CLM -Jim Fritchey reported: • Broadleaf weeds were sprayed • Due to cold weather (plant material) cutbacks were delayed 2 IX. Old Business - None 16 I 6z 1 X. Update Report A. Maintenance —Bruce Forman —None B. Tax Analysis —Bud Martin — None XI. New Business RWA Survey was distributed. (See attached) It was noted additional ROW markings were requested by FPL for (Transformer) Box placement. XII. Public Comment Discussions took place on holding a Public Informational meeting on the Project Status for the Underground Conversion. The Committee was in agreement a Public meeting was not necessary. It was concluded an Informational Letter will be distributed at a later time. It was suggested to request the VBRA (Vanderbilt Beach Resident Association) post information on their website concerning the Underground Conversion Project. Joe Foster gave a brief introduction. He announced he is running for County Commissioner. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 2:32 p.m. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on 3 - I L® , as presented 5 or amended The next meeting is March 4, 2010 at 2:00 P.M. ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625 111 T" Ave. Naples, FL. H N o �t„to J N Z UJ Z w caw 63 u3 u3 69 u3 w u) f (9 0 u3 u) U3 u31 63 (A (9 69 u3 co — 'no o goo'' m LO - CO M O O O 0 0 0 N O m (A m N'D (n O cD a m v_ o 'm v _ m o m r m C'D (o N O E to Q v co m O O N m m m m 0 0 0 u3 u3 u3 u3 of u3 u3 u3 u3 u3 u) O O O N N -)o m o o r r 0 0 m .O M 01 m •- O O N w N 0 O co ( N m 7 r o (n N N o r o N N r r (n N N m V V' M M Y w caw 63 u3 u3 69 u3 w u) f (9 0 u3 u) U3 u31 63 (A (9 69 u3 u) u3 f9 03 u3Ice I w ui Vi u3 O O O O O O m p o 1 O O O O 0 0 O' O O O N O C m O m n N O r a) rn 0 0 E to Q v co m m u) u3 f9 03 u3Ice I w ui Vi u3 ui u3 w u3 ui u3 ui u3 63 u3 u3 u3 ui ui u3 ui w u3 u3 u3 u3 ui ui w u3 u3 (9 ui ui u3 u3 O n w Z Lz J � N .1o.- ><, U- (n CO 2'��GZ mZZ Z Ljj W O ao F-H L--`F -tZ W JL�' <F- Z wU)X F-i W WF d'zQ,J �w 0} Z < U) U WWZZobooaaw0= =w ~z�F wwrg �I Tx 11 zzo� w W IL ItwO —XLY R w��a5 Z F- LL. U)O(9U ZwC) W~ �(n OO 0 LL QOIY wF- W X W 00(1)UJ W WO ZF-QO W W OQ QZ wZ (.9 F- w� �LL F- F- i� ism > >p H W LL LL LL LL W LL d' LL W W W l9 x LL Q F- W 2' Z F- U F- J W O F- Z Z w U` Z W W Q Z (4 (n >- >- o In J J QQ Xa F- ww) ZQlY ZH o.OZrOO QNaa mwF- WLL aQ R O W WQ c=.)�(LL —i??� ��UUZ�Or �w(�i�?g O as w�?(n 2� a JOLLO U F- F- mmF- N M •! N (O r m O) O N M 7 (O (D r O O N N N N N N N N N N Cl) C7 M M Cl) m M m M Cl) V' B21 11 O) m (O 0 o M 'ci } v v > j N o > > ar a) U a mo m m m r n c c 5 }voo LZ LL --i LL O 0 0 ° } } } LL LL LL co CO h m CO N N O_ O O l7 o (a ui N O O a) is N N N N N w O M m m O m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O M M n O O V 0 0 O O m m r (n 6 c co m m m O O N m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O O O O N N -)o m o o r r 0 0 m .O M o o ( (n V V V c co ( N m (n (n o O) O o (n N N o o N N r r (n N N m V V' M M Y 'm M M V N N C Cl) C Cl) r r (17 N N N N O O d N u3 u3 u ui u u3 E9 u ui w w 69 u u3 u u3 63wwww w w w w w w 63 w w w 63 w w u3 w ww a a O G GD W W U U O O d d- u u: CD O O N N O O N N m O O O t t`J M M C CV O O V V r r N N (9 (9 U U) u u) 19 O O m m m m + + M O O O O O O m m L Lo N M M M M O O C CN C Cl) O O r r Q Q r ( (n V V M M Q m mZZMZ � �3(nM V a0 co r V V V Z o) o o o o ( MM Z ZZ M M(n V V' M M O Z:r •O N Ci) M 0 0 m N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o m m m m o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , ,� m 0 T c c a a Q Q :F O O r a aJ M M CO O O N N N O O m ( (n O O O O O O ( (O O O m N N N ( (O r r v O (O U) V N o r r V m m r r r O a V O r r r o o O Q Q O m m u 0 0 u) O ( (n o O O m m M M Q d Z Q V Z o Z Z Z o 0 0 0 0 o oo 0 o : 7 0 0 o o Z Z Z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Z o 0 0 0 o o Z 0 o o 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v U_ UZ _ a U Z C o O U ` `_ - ° a 2 a Z C as ° a� a� 2 a) a a) U a w C N N N C C ( (n l l9 V VJ u u) (9 V VJ < r U U E m m m m 0 0 0 c c o of L LY D D a a c cy m m a i is m m m> w w m o�� o L L L a a) ! !� m N U m ( (0 U U U 81) S SY� c ma d N a o a) m'o U C C U y C C y a) ` ` N C L ( U U U? 7 lC6 `� 7 C C 7 5 5 7 J J J p m C C - Z a) N N c O O O m y y N N 7 7 N N N N p p m m w o o o o o o o N N N N a a7 :' O O 6 OOmwuLLL°�.�wwU � �u)UUU C C) a as J JLL� ( (9d o o o N N N _ N V1 a a) U U U U U) -_ � � ( E m m Z Z Z Z Z m m m O O O O D ((aa a ata{ E C' C C m N N N N N N N Z Z C C @ @ E J J J J N N N N ' D U U C N U E E E E E E E . .- - - O M M m o o'_�� c co � ��j8En.aaa ( (5(5 i i ci U r ro 4 4) m m m m m w w w w c c E E E E E E E m m w w . . c� E E E E w t to Y Y ( (n v v! a a! @ @ _ 0 0 0 0 a O N Q a a c E E a _ _o J J _o 0 m m m m m a O m m m m E> > > c y 0 0 0 E N m m 0 0 0 p p, O O p m m m m� ( C C (p � m 2 2 2 Z Z Z Z Z d ( (�% > U U U U U U U LL L LL l li LL L LL L LL LL S 00 ( (n00000r-mvrn00000 oo(o o oc) o o r r L ornrn o v o ooC o� r rno900000�o 00o0oo o m m m m V V' r N N 0 0 0 a O O M M O O O O m() ( (n r r N o o o o o C r m O O v N O O m M M r r r r y N T m v u m m u3 W u u) u3 63 u3 63 (9 u) 63 ui u3 u3 u3 ui 63 u3 ui w w u u3 w w u3 u u3 u3 u u3 u3 u u) u ui ui o n000(oormm. - om o vcor o N O o0 o o o o t u) t t � co O r O M O N O U1 u) O O m m 66 a a) N N (C(ppV O O O ( (n N r r O r o (n C CA o Cl) (`') [O'i aJ N N N M N ( (Om) m 0 o o co" r r m m m Qi N N 1P m C (vj Cl) .- O O O O o M M M M M m N N C � N ui w w w (9 u3 u3 613 69 u3 u3 W 613 u3 u3 u3 u3 u3 6,3 6F3 u3 s sA 6 63 W w w u3 u u3 u3 u ui w w u3 ( O O V U V o () W" 0 0 0 O N m c3 Cl) m- O O O O V o V (n m M o- o o m m m Cl) w (9 u) H3 69 E9 d1 u) 9) (9 U, u u3 H u ui 6-3 E E9 u3 u u3 u u3 6i O O O O O O O 0 o o 0 o o 0 o o 0 0 o o o o 0 0 o 0 0 o o o o o o O O O O O O O o o 0 0 0 o 0 0 6 O r o O •- ( (n m O O O m m O ' '' O O O c t` L r O O co r r r c co N r r N M ci L Lo to N � � � � !� N N O O O c ( ((i ( (ri (n O n w Z Lz J � N .1o.- ><, U- (n CO 2'��GZ mZZ Z Ljj W O ao F-H L--`F -tZ W JL�' <F- Z wU)X F-i W WF d'zQ,J �w 0} Z < U) U WWZZobooaaw0= =w ~z�F wwrg �I Tx 11 zzo� w W IL ItwO —XLY R w��a5 Z F- LL. U)O(9U ZwC) W~ �(n OO 0 LL QOIY wF- W X W 00(1)UJ W WO ZF-QO W W OQ QZ wZ (.9 F- w� �LL F- F- i� ism > >p H W LL LL LL LL W LL d' LL W W W l9 x LL Q F- W 2' Z F- U F- J W O F- Z Z w U` Z W W Q Z (4 (n >- >- o In J J QQ Xa F- ww) ZQlY ZH o.OZrOO QNaa mwF- WLL aQ R O W WQ c=.)�(LL —i??� ��UUZ�Or �w(�i�?g O as w�?(n 2� a JOLLO U F- F- mmF- N M •! N (O r m O) O N M 7 (O (D r O O N N N N N N N N N N Cl) C7 M M Cl) m M m M Cl) V' B21 11 O) m (O 0 o M 'ci } v v > j N o > > ar a) U a mo m m m r n c c 5 }voo LZ LL --i LL O 0 0 ° } } } LL LL LL co CO h m CO N N O_ O O l7 o (a ui N O O a) is N N N N N w cnr0D ixm 33D� ? C 0) a ;,-,m � y� a< _ c0 � H '8 a 0 to CC O. CD 3 y 0D � H y C 3 .=i y N O O = ' CD 0 a M 0D 0 CD H CD 0 CD W N Ut N N O CAD O O v O . i O - OD CO 0 v O O -1 O .-. W W A Cn CA W CD W O v 0 O CD W-- O W O N 0) C) (D C) CD 0) ODD W O v O W -th. -I U1 ON W OO ACA v O O v O W 0O W co -- O W O �1 0 W O O O CA O M OD 00 O v 0 — N W Cn O Cn N " O CO N? 0 0 O- v co co co co v O O W O CO 0 co O O 0 O 0 0 0 00 N Co Ov O N N W O W Ut N N W NP O O CD 0� M .4 OD W CD U1 O -1 O W O W 0 4 0 (D O O O O --I O O O Cn O n o � o o fl, C y 3 � F� j O1 O. .0 C E F = < 0 C7 CD CD 0D m co O W O W W W N ,A W W w N A A CD 0 : v O -� v 0 co 00 N .A IV CA O O N 4 n A A O O A W N Ut N N O CAD O O v O . i O - OD CO 0 v O O -1 O .-. W W A Cn CA W CD W O v 0 O CD W-- O W O N 0) C) (D C) CD 0) ODD W O v O W -th. -I U1 ON W OO ACA v O O v O W 0O W co -- O W O �1 0 W O O O CA O M OD 00 O v 0 — N W Cn O Cn N " O CO N? 0 0 O- v co co co co v O O W O CO 0 co O O 0 O 0 0 0 00 N Co Ov O N N W O W Ut N N W NP O O CD 0� M .4 OD W CD U1 O -1 O W O W 0 4 0 (D O O O O --I O O O Cn O n o � o o fl, C y 3 � F� j O1 O. .0 C E F = < 0 C7 CD CD 0D m co N N W A O CD 0 v 0 -� O co 00 � N .COD � CD O N O O W j 0) {9 N co W A O v Cn 00 m O 10) -� O co 00 CD A c0 N CD A. IV A v O 0 V v 0) 0) O --I CD co N V CD 69 Cn Cn O 0) co U1 V N CD U1 Cn 69 co N N � m O 0 N O 0 N O y CO O D p A O Cn w W 00 -4 -► O O co W N --I O N Cn D. N --I co 0n m Cn N i cn v v 0 a ty!! CD 69 a) 0 N N 0) j Cn O 69 A 0 W A Ui CD v 40 (fl to A 0 W 69 Cn W {a 0 O W 0 Ei9 Cn w v Cn N (D p M O �W Cn O v v O co 69 = vv�0 O 0D 0D CD O a 3 3 3 0 O • O -�C � 1.) � Qa D O (O . _ 3 � a CD N 'C n O < N o� 3 U) CL 0 _ _ _ c 0 O A A -4 -+ O v OND OW0 O 0 U1 N 00 0 N) C) Ln 69 0 0 A A -4 N W W W O O 00 " O 69 00 O E3 � N O � O O 00 -► 0 69 Al A 0) A W A � v --► co 5A 0 cn 0o � N 69 r W v N COn � W W O Cn O W W �-N O A � D. N W co 4 O � 0 m 161 14" D D < 0 N Q = O °.a=► aM. CD a, rL o � �� . of !y � CD n °. =r `D o Pol �N a CD C c _ 0) C a r. a to C _ ry 0 C. O ~' � a .a A N O O CD W O N O O CD N W N O O Co N N O O w N O O u N n w N O .i O a a A N O u N n w N O .i O a a 16 1 B21 0 Ho 0 _N --1 --1 U S r N y N O O a n pt M o a cm boo§ 000� ,� Z O y K pCDj 3, o- y c o a rF'i O F. N W s Tl O O �, O y O Q CD CL CD ) CD CL 0 C c c d m o c ll ' a n ` CD Q. ^; 3 CL c CD c � CD W c v .. C C r a Z m 0p 0) OD . OD -� A W CO W W W W CO N W O Cn W co IN V 000n-4 N ON -4 N co W --0 OM- Po ONCWnID N N O00 -►MMO Cn OOov00 Cn 0M-4CD(AW O OOcom (� 69 .69 W W N W W W .a IQ ~ m N .01 W O 000 O co W W OCnC"A WA Cn N O _ Co O W -1 0 -I � (vOn 69 .. 69 69 A O A O N cn c ~ W CO W D W W W " W O O W co O N 000 .OA -� O N Cn A W CO A -► N N O 00 —ODCDA O � in in m 00 -4—CT W W OODDv0 6A H9 6A C)1 O) Cn A cn cn A OD W O CO W CO Cn W W CJt W W 4 N N O O cn t0 O N O Cl O CO O O -! O O Cn N A Cn O N Cn W W Cn W Cl CO Cn N cn O W- W Cn N M 0 0 W O A O01 v 0 " •v O O 69 69 69 v ONDM -►A m V rQ T N P.—P, W <D O Cn W W W O co IV Cn000nA IN OOVO Cn 0000000 0 0.4"0 Cn O Cn Cn W W 0 W O 0 N <In • W — OOMN cn 0"w0 W 0 OD�I -'Cn00 O Ov000 {� 69 69 cn -cn -cn cn co N Cn W A CO --4 :I O N W� O W W W O 00 N-A O Cn cn O O 0 v O W OCnOD�lOW 'J O-INO A O W Ch -1 W N �I O N Cn N N O O W 00 W O --4 CO N N ... O O A Cn N 0 N A N 16 B21 Report for: March 4, 2010 Meeting Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Project Status (VA -32)- ACTIVE — Conversion of 35 properties to underground (individual meter connection) 02 -02 -10 Malcolm Pimie delivers Final Bid Specifications for bid of Electrical Meter Connection Conversion (35 properties) 02 -03 -10 Bids are due for conversion of 31 properties. All commercial property has been removed from project due to multiple variables (cost factors) which do not fit the current bid as outlined. The Commercial Properties will be quoted by annual contractors for the conversion of the private meter. (VA -31)- 100% Completed — FPL Channel Drive Construction 12 -03 -09 ROW Permit has been issued for project; Payment to FPL and Comcast for associated cost in process (pending confirmation with Budget Office) 01 -07 -10 UNDER CONSTRUCTION; Project is under construction 3 of 4 residential meters have been converted to underground; remaining 4th residential overhead to be converted on 01/08/10 02 -04 -10 PROJECT COMPLTED (VA -30)- 100% Completed — Comcast Channel Drive Coordination 12 -03 -09 Confirmation of payment to Comcast pending. ($4,000) 01 -07 -10 UNDER CONSTRUCTION; Comcast coordinating underground conversion of Comcast utilities with FPL. (VA -27)- ACTIVE — Phase One `Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement" (UFCA) 11 -10 -09 COMPLETED; UFCA approved by BCC for `Channel Drive' 01 -07 -10 PENDING; UFCA agreement pending for overall Phase One (Engineering Cost Estimate pending from FPL) (VA -26)- ACTIVE — Malcolm Pirnie; Review preliminary design provided by FPL 12 -08 -09 IN PROCESS; Site Meeting with John Lehr, FPL Senior Engineer Project Manager, reviewing proposed easement sites. Some sites were indicated as not requiring easement while some others require further investigation with updated utilities detail drawing and updated field locating of existing utilities. (site specific detailed survey correlated with field location of utilities) 02 -02 -10 13 Exhibits received from RWA for review of easement areas proposed by FPL. Staff will coordinate in scheduling follow -up meeting with John Lehr to review locations for transformers and switch cabinets. 02 -23 -10 Meeting with FPL to review easement sites. 4 Easements are un- avoidable. (VA -19) — ACTIVE- ONGOING — On Call Services — Malcolm Pirnie Engineering On -going services for meeting attendance and preliminary investigation regarding underground power line installation. 03 -04 -10 Ongoing On -Call Engineering Services by Malcolm Pirnie Engineering (VA -18) — ACTIVE- ONGOING- — Maintenance Contract — Award to Commercial Land; Annual Maintenance `base contract' per Quote 03 -04 -10 Ongoing Maintenance Services by Commercial Land Maintenance 161,11921 Brief summary of "Underground Utilities Conversion" project activity Since December 11, 2007 Initial BCC Approval of Agreement 12 -11 -07 BCC Approval of ROW Agreement with FPL date Dec. 11, 2007 03 -26 -08 TEAM TELECONFERNCE (FPL, COMCAST, COUNTY, MSTU (C.ARTHUR), VBPOA (JACKIE BAMMEL, RWA, MALCOLM PIRNIE) 03 -10 -08 PUBLIC MEETING AT ST. JOHNS 05 -12 -08 Review of RWA Survey w/ Malcolm Pirnie and C. Arthur 06 -05 -09 Confirmation of 4 residential units affected by "Channel Drive Pilot Project" with FPL (Ryan Drum); Field Meeting to review project; Affected Properties are: NANCE, HAROLD 283 CHANNEL BASTANI, KEN K 261 CHANNEL KOHLER, RUTH H 227 CHANNEL REYNOLDS TR, HENRY E 213 CHANNEL 06 -23 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE: Hart's Electrical begins work per PO 4500107832 09 -11 -08 Review of 1st RWA Survey Submittal Sept 11, 2008 09 -12 -08 Confirmation of FPL Red -Line Comments for survey Sep. 12, 2008 09 -17 -08 TEAM TELECONFERENCE (FPL, MALCOLM PIRNIE) 09 -22 -08 FPL "Pot Hole" digs recommended locations identified Sept 22, 2008 11 -21 -08 TEAM MEETING (C. ARTHUR, J. BAMMEL, MALCOLM PIRNIE) 02 -02 -09 FPL Approval of Survey Feb. 4, 2009 02 -04 -09 Staff request $13,027.00 Engineering Deposit Invoice Feb. 4, 2009 03 -09-09 PUBLIC MEETING AT ST. JOHNS 04 -02 -09 MSTU Committee makes motion to proceed with "Channel Drive Project" 04 -10 -09 Verification of easements for'private property' April 10, 2009 04 -28 -09 BCC Approval of Modified Ordinance adding installation of powerline within `easement' to private properties. This is to allow installation of power from ROW Line to private property connection. 1611 11 06 -01 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE: Ryan Drumm (FPL) request .pdf of ROW Agreement for review; forwarded via email 06 -25 -09 FPL Draft Design submittal Phase One Plans 06 -26 -09 Staff request (1) Cadd file of Phase One Submittal; (2) Review indicates drawings are not sufficient for bidding purposes; (3) Full size prints 'to scale' requested' 06 -26 -09 TELECONFERNCE ; CALL IN FROM FPL (John Lehr, FPL; Troy Todd, FPL; Ryan Drumm, FPL; Darryl Richard, Collier County) Troy Todd (FPL) clarifies that "tariff charges" apply to Channel Drive Project (ref: Tariff No. 6 per PSC approved Tariff); $566.59 for the 4 properties on Channel Drive 07 -27 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE: Hart's Electrical completed electrical from ROW to Home /Resident for the following Channel Drive Address': 213,283,263 and 227 08 -07 -09 RYAN DRUMM SUBMITTAL — Channel Drive UFCA; and 'Draft' plans; Ryan confirms no existing underground FPL Facilities on Channel Drive 09 -16 -09 RYAN DRUMM 2nd SUBMITTAL —Channel Drive UFCA (dated 8- 18 -09); and 'Final' Channel Drive plans (marked 'check set') 09 -17 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE RESIDENT COORDINATION: Kent Smith called on behalf of Mr. Nance to report that he has received the mailing /letter regarding Channel Drive project and that Mr. Nance chooses to 'not participate' at this time due to financial concerns. He mentioned his wife was in the hospital and that he did not have the money to pay the $650.00 for his "private conversion" to underground. 09 -22 -09 TELECONFERENCE (FPL, COUNTY LEGAL, STAFF, MALCOLM PIRNIE, C. ARTHUR) Recommendations: FPL to submit 'agreement' in word format (if possible); staff to proceed with obtaining payment for'private' underground conversion from property owners Nance and Bastani on Channel Drive. FPL confirms that survey has been accepted and 'Final Plans' are pending for Phase One Project. 09 -21 -09 Ryan Drumm provides FPL Cost Breakdown for Channel Drive; Staff intends to process payment for an "FPL Invoice" upon BCC approval of UFCA (Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement) for Channel Drive; UFCA is pending completion of 'legal review' TOTAL CHANNEL DRIVE COST: $23,242.00 09 -23 -09 Message from Mr. Kent Smith (Legal Representative for Mr. Nance (Property Owner at 283 Channel Drive); Mr. Smith stated that the 'owner' has 'no desire' to underground his private connection, and furthermore has 'no intention of spending any money on his home' (at 283 Channel Drive) related to the power line underground conversion. 09 -24 -09 COMCAST COORDINATION; Channel Drive Plans forwarded to Comcast for quote of underground conversion for Comcast overhead utilities 1611' B21"' 10 -01 -09 Phase One "Legal Description" forwarded to FPL for confirmation of FPL formal acceptance of 'Legal Description' per 'Right of Way Agreement Section 2. Sub - section (d)' 10 -05 -09 FPL ACCEPTANCE OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION; John Lehr via email confirms FPL's official acceptance of the legal description for the Phase One Project; Staff request confirmation of "EXISTING FPL FACILITIES" per'Right of Way Agreement Section 2. Sub - section (e)) documentation of all existing FPL underground facilities within the ROW that will not be included under ROW agreement (for Exhibit C) 10 -06 -09 COMCAST COORINDINATION: Mark Cook informs County Staff that Comcast has re- assigned project review to himself and Andy Vaspasiano; Mark indicates he and Andy are working on "Channel Drive" Cost estimate. * *COMCAST CONFIRMS 100% of conversion of Comcast Utilities is to be by the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU as the project sponsor. Comcast indicates that there will be no 'reductions' in cost due to 'depreciation' of equipment /existing installation. Services are identified as 'new' and 'not in need of upgrade'. Installation of underground conduit for Comcast is through Comcast contractor managed 'entirely by Comcast'. 10 -09 -09 Malcolm Pirnie submits letter for review of Project Drawing submittals and recommendation related to which party should install the underground conduit for Phase One Project 10 -12 -09 County Legal provides legal opinion from Nabors Giblin & Nickerson, 1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 200, Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (letter dated 10 -8 -09 Gregory T. Stewart 10 -12 -09 RWA Proposal submitted for survey of Phase II, III, and IV 10 -13 -09 TELECONFERENCE (C. ARTHUR, STAFF, MALCOLM PIRNIE) 10 -14 -09 FPL SUBMITTAL; PLANS FOR PHASE ONE PROJECT (Marked 'Preliminary') 10 -14 -09 John Lehr notifies staff (via phone call evening of 10- 14 -09) that the 'one page' agreement submitted on 8 -7 -09 has to be revised to a new 4 page agreement (delivery pending from FPL) 10 -22 -09 John Hart Electrical received check for $650.00 for Bastani on Channel Drive 'Private Can Conversion to underground. 10 -28 -09 Bastani Channel Drive private conversion project completed by Hart's Electrical 10 -28 -09 Revised UFCA Agreement received from FPL for BCC approval on Nov. 10, 2009 11 -03 -09 Confirmation of Comcast cost for Channel Drive Project is $4,000.00 per FPL plans. 11 -03 -09 Scott Teach and Michelle Arnold teleconference with Nabors Giblin & Nickerson results of teleconference to be presented at 11 -05 -09 MSTU meeting. 1611 B21 11 -05 -09 Discussion Nabors Giblin & Nickerson legal consult related to 'underground conversion' and potential 'ordinance'; Committee makes motion to direct staff to pursue Ordinance for the MSTU to pay for homeowner's conversion and Ordinance to 'require' participation and mechanism to address non - participation. 11 -10 -09 BCC Approval of UFCA Agreement with FPL for Channel Drive 'pilot project' 11 -10 -09 Field Meeting to review Proposed "Easements" for Phase One Project; Ryan Drum FPL was in attendance with Chris Tilman, Darryl Richard, Jeff Gower, and Charlie Arthur. Inspection indicated that all of the easements proposed were not necessary, and that 'alternative' site planning would locate the electrical boxes within existing ROW. Follow - up meeting with John Lehr scheduled for December 8, 2009 (1 pm) 12 -08 -09 Meeting with FPL (John Lehr, Kate Donofrio, Ryan Drum) and Malcolm Pirnie (Chris Tilman, Jeff Gower) and County Staff (Darryl Richard); Review of easements proposed; approximately 50% of easements were determined to not be necessary; However, the other 50% of easements require (1) detailed re- survey, (2) placement of stakes in field identifying ROW and property lines, and (3) re- identification of utilities in the field (call into Florida One Call system) Staff will coordinate with Malcolm Pirnie and RWA for necessary project activity; additional proposal from RWA is necessary for scope of work identified. Proposal from Malcolm Pirnie for'easement acquisition' is also recommended at this time in anticipation of possible requirement for easements. 12 -15 -09 BCC Approval of Ordinance Modification to add 'private' connections to MSTU Ordinance thus allowing MSTU to complete 100% of private meter connections as required to obtain 25% GAF waiver from FPL. 01 -04 -10 Draft Letter to 37 residents requiring underground conversion for meter connection under review 01 -04 -10 Channel Drive Project Under Construction 01 -19 -10 Letter sent to 35 residents in Phase One Project that have 'overhead' meter connections; staff is monitoring confirmation of receipt of this mailing by Certified Mail 02 -02 -10 Channel Drive Project 90% completed; missing 2 transformer boxes pending from FPL; Comcast is 100% installed on Channel Drive. 02 -02 -11 RWA Delivers 13 exhibits for locations for transformers and switch cabinets; These exhibits will be used in review of proposed easements by FPL in Preliminary Design 02 -02 -12 Malcolm Pirnie provides Final Bid Documents for Electrical Conversion of 35 properties in Phase One Project which have existing overhead meter connections. Staff preparing bid for advertisement and release to 'all bidders' not restricted to annual contractors. 16 $--',;j B 2 -1 02 -23 -10 Field Meeting with FPL to review proposed locations for power boxes. Engineer Consultant Malcolm Pirnie indicates that only 4 easements will be required. Many of the sites will require modification of existing utilities, structures (walls, and other infrastructure) prior to installation of the power boxes. 16111 !.' # RFQ 10- 5452 -- "Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Underground Electrical Service" Tabulation Vendors Who Subscribe to Solicitation Commodities: 1146 Vendors Who Downloaded Specs: 90 Vendors Who Submitted Solicitation: 7 Item Description: Trenching, Conduit Install, Backfill and Sod Item Number: 1 Vendor Company Quantity Unit Price Unit of Measure Subtotal Notes Gulf Coast Power & Light 3600 $7.35 LF $26,460.00 ADVANCED POWER ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. 3600 $8.50 LF $30,600.00 Harts Electrical 3600 $7.77 LF $27,972.00 MCKENNA HEAVY CONSTRUCTION 3600 $5.23 LF $18,828.00 Mizpah Electric 3600 $6.76 LF $24,336.00 E.B. Simmonds Electrical, Inc. 3600 $7.95 LF $28,620.00 iTran Partners, Inc. 3600 $4.10 LF $14,760.00 Item Description: Replace Meter Can 200 AMP Item Number: 2 Vendor Company Quantity Unit Price Unit of Measure Subtotal Notes Gulf Coast Power & Light 31$350.00 Ea $10,850.00 ADVANCED POWER ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. 31$925.00 Ea $28,675.00 Harts Electrical 31$577.00 Ea $17,887.00 MCKENNA HEAVY CONSTRUCTION 31$657.00 Ea $20,367.00 Mizpah Electric 31$500.00 Ea $15,500.00 E.B. Simmonds Electrical, Inc. 31$2,620.00 Ea $81,220.00 iTran Partners, Inc. 31$509.00 Ea $15,779.00 Item Description: Cutoff and Cap Overhead Riser Item Number: 3 Vendor Company Quantity Unit Price Unit of Measure Subtotal Notes Gulf Coast Power & Light 31$55.50 Ea $1,720.50 ADVANCED POWER ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. 31$122.00 Ea $3,782.00 Harts Electrical 31$50.00 Ea $1,550.00 MCKENNA HEAVY CONSTRUCTION 31$11.00 Ea $341.00 Mizpah Electric 31$165.00 Ea $5,115.00 E.B. Simmonds Electrical, Inc. 31$472.51 Ea $14,647.81 iTran Partners, Inc. 31$126.00 Ea $3,906.00 B2] 16I 1 19211 Item Description: Permit Fees Item Number: 4 Vendor Company Quantity Unit Price Unit of Measure Subtotal Notes Gulf Coast Power & Light 31$117.00 Ea $3,627.00 ADVANCED POWER ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. 31$150.00 Ea $4,650.00 Harts Electrical 31$163.00 Ea $5,053.00 MCKENNA HEAVY CONSTRUCTION 31$149.00 Ea $4,619.00 Mizpah Electric 31$200.00 Ea $6,200.00 E.B. Simmonds Electrical, Inc. 31$642.21 Ea $19,908.51 iTran Partners, Inc. 31$157.00 Ea $4,867.00 Vendor Grand Totals Vendor Company Items Bid On Grand Total Gulf Coast Power & Light 4 $42,657.50 ADVANCED POWER ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. 4 $67,707.00 Harts Electrical 4 $52,462.00 MCKENNA HEAVY CONSTRUCTION 4 $44,155.00 Mizpah Electric 4 $51,151.00 E.B. Simmonds Electrical, Inc. 4 $144,396.32 iTran Partners, Inc. 4 $39,312.00 O �. � 7 m m 3 � co 7 N o °3, w 0 o c o m V a `B. n r 16r A W N r —► � O m i 1 a 0 co N N � OD CO) CA .QQOa N 0QQ0 ,CQOA� QQQ� v C C DO Z O z d G7 C C a r 0 2 2 o � D D a z z c� < m z Z —L c') o Q tti 0 O Q cwi, N a r- r- r- r- C CL -n -n -n r o w 2 2 2 Cl) 2 a Jo m � m Ja m O m 1 00 al C." o ? r W O O J N N Ci N Ci - co 0) n T V r W DooD D � N i S � O c o o C7f � _ a m = w CJf O O p (T; G1� v (D - N i =r •�+-. O m OO N 'O 1 fD O 6 w ��! O O N ,+ O CL O m (D x � O ono otl 0 0 0 CL �D C C Q. CL ro m MN cr pp r� PF 0 y 11 r T ¢1 w 1611821 PLOT DASE: 9/30/$009 PLOT 1WE: 6:21:16 PM CAD NAME: DJO s yy p a a / 4t \ / Nr =D l � or. r \ N �V _CA (! / B L4 4 ' \. I s n I j \ NY1 f y C rri °v V ENO a ''+ I�O�} �� - +-►p1C " f cod 3►N1C� c s u • y V • \ __ X71 a s 3 Ilia + 0 wt 12==c 0 a 9 I 1 M1 1 a3p�pp I SOD (.Ti C C�i.+�S 1Ci-- 1 C §CA y J � �$ w � 2 � < • z ST H ® ®® I �l Ik T � I � II \ ' MATCHUNE SEE DWG#R126t NA3 9 p E 2 Ls 11111v®ril I m MR ove° pp e q �_it �Vb °.°C° 6 Wm2^ III AJAR e� W ;D R. 3 $ a� e q NO X23 ° � P. Q F �E w Q WP - -01011 'ri 3 w�O�� ° � � �C 1 N m 2 '/Si a S r C g tS C A G� FF n A ,� ro 0 w D v Fag 0906 €e8 '+ k3°S z D D a< I (7 n 3 go S 3 '^ g, j Rat F NR� 00% a� a9w 2 r.n < NZ� Z @n w >z a�w3so 3 s�z{ �7 rn� BSI D Sig <C Q iO ° $ ^o 3t''� ^RQ ^> iI I I W zm m-ri I y c o �9`c �g i 8e�t '� rn ❑ r'Jp p Qno rj� 1 1 R g�� C7 �� AM I F FF 1,41 IN w Q_i�ryypa�;_ _Q E'f p ssA �61�133�g q s A O rr H A H 1p �D� i fA EEYiil � tr A N IJ ISffi�� yTJ 1611 B21 MW DATE: 10/5/1008 ROT YIML" 237:49 PM CAD WMD DJD c Q N P Q O y(I D I 1 GULF OF MEXICO / F � I r i � I � I I N I I I I F rs xx I ' I !1 { % 1 I+A11 all r r v jig qm E53 ISO to 1 O \ 1 v i f� m • =r. m I STN � NN �ro ��. \ �� i� PE]iW -I p I 5 11C •1•�iMQ —y,P tJ R 3 C I ." ` QF yg' 3 N1� 16f .\ W N �A I r o E ® ® a 0, i N I OI I 7 � � � gg Gar•- / o { s9?�8 mil � D ❑ 1 s ❑ z 1 rn jT7 I m 1 4 D I As D \ �� j 0 6 I S \ K +$a� 0 age rmn 9.6 g oso� gr� 3. ^ o ° I� °ZZZZQ° D s 0�0 a - t D# a s u o o ,a3 g f"J Tg� _ 0 � < rn {f. V A p f*I 0. SO zo z M ld b C)� 3 z N x Z Zm y 1 WQ�-t ° o ags'OA 8 21 p --4 Z< a ❑ N z fdS R n,S TAN MW Tit p a a 5 54 V VN a�A�i n d��Xi m�• N� •g. NNq �. S, YT � s �Yr== ail �SY_Y � g7 -IT � _v R I n tg 1 P1 4 . Q N N e� x� o • X B O B o ®o s � ® ®a z P m A T e 4 a�s s a o� ® )9 Q K O �S o _ I V4 a> o ;a C m W it) z $ <CA RAT TIME: 11:211C16 AM CAD NAME: DA 0 X O Itl O a Jf�W r ll i� 40 u I 0 b 16 14 1 £VNt9Zt8 #9M4 33S 3N11H31VW - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X.111 �Q{ .;*`Mr i ism p lit, t m I I a.(f. 04 �I v R =n_ I I "r I �" I 1 C. I Is j OC2I i N m o u__— a1 I m a # � z ro o N s mm as � � N cD CD MCD 0 0 N � 1 1 y ! O ' + + o C C N N N N I� 11 �o >"r a 7,0® O Ir �d a f- li ��Q O O ,t 1� z j f A v sN J �a � u g 9 Y- �n s m u V I a O� gydgQ yy y �- 0 d 1 V� I • w '<� �• AA vA MATCHUNE SEE DWG#Rl261NA6t 2 - a z fi# i gn A �$ � aYo7pgIT"T11��y�y! � c �' IS ul_ N .. 111111111millop C�i. i0 0111jo T 'z V v cr � A D D D Q L - M A1 In W 1 p c qft 3v X5. I A3 C p m A 1z $ $ K rn I 1 ' a I I I � j I I i 1 � � C O a 3 -Cm3 T yt}' All w I I O I a .S — s. a I I a 2 - a z fi# i gn A �$ � aYo7pgIT"T11��y�y! � c �' w ul_ N .. 1Z C�i. i0 0111jo T 'z V v Z ?,1i 1 - � A ^� ` I D 0 Z r m —UA YJA : TR 1 I I I I I 1 A X 1Z �m M 1 p qft I A3 1z I I 1 ' a I I I � j I I i 1 � � 1 1 j o I I O I a I I a a m 13 I TAMI r ^� ` I D 0 Z r m —UA YJA : TR 3 OF TA N =a O sE ° a� 5y S� ti 4 BOB S € € ❑ ® ❑ Y . 11M C1Y.N P1, G mm&- gQ Q ,i I I s• � /4''I'$ r V --I / 44 s \ N r- 1 FF r7l III \ zD f ME �e —1 VJ r� t J V� �Ro t I i y 1Lr nt' � u 4 8w,cyi w N a s IC u I ! t la .0 ° - � 4 � N I r & � 3 rn V8 r Ail u A ( I� Q ,i I I s• � /4''I'$ r V --I / 44 s \ N r- 1 FF r7l III \ zD f ME �e —1 VJ r� t J 4VNLSZL?J#DtAG 33S 3NnHoitlW ----- ------ -- - - -- T T r - .'ter -T'T n- - --Tl. 4& Q , o � 1 W �S 4 r T 1611 B21' i2 !C !A N tT ID 1� l I ! I I Ip I� IA Ir 12 !m IN !m M V� �Ro t I i y 1Lr nt' � u 4 8w,cyi w N a s IC u I ! t la .0 A 4VNLSZL?J#DtAG 33S 3NnHoitlW ----- ------ -- - - -- T T r - .'ter -T'T n- - --Tl. 4& Q , o � 1 W �S 4 r T 1611 B21' i2 !C !A N tT ID 1� l I ! I I Ip I� IA Ir 12 !m IN !m M V� �Ro t I w N a a W I ! t la .0 R I r rn V8 r O u A ( I� 4 I I l t ! t ! ❑ I• I k , m V � x � o N ° c 0 D FrF p m K m ^J _�$ r— TAMMM TR --------------- •c A °s 7oa7oa =�c W= O �W �oNi D IN f ° ° 3 i u Q— -0 �� Co a- O < OSDV(A71A Imo Y o V GTI�AN m C) v� nm 1 _ CQr 7�C° Paz Ai' O � coi 4 3f t °° WDga ZG W on rn � 3 73P I a° G77 Z 4VNLSZL?J#DtAG 33S 3NnHoitlW ----- ------ -- - - -- T T r - .'ter -T'T n- - --Tl. 4& Q , o � 1 W �S 4 r T 1611 B21' i2 !C !A N tT ID 1� l I ! I I Ip I� IA Ir 12 !m IN !m M V� �Ro t I w N a a W I ! t la .0 R I r rn V8 r ! m I � A ( I� 4 I I l t ! t ! ❑ I• I k , m N c 0 D FrF ❑ N _�$ r— TAMMM TR r F 1611 I-, � PLOT DAM 9/30/4009 RAT TWG 3;40:3) PM GW NAM OJO > gg 4 ffi MATCHLINE SEE DWG#R1261NA6 4 N -- • - - - - -- ------------------------------------ �. r � — ------------ --------------------------- p p m N i ti ~ `I �1 p VP. 1 Tl 1 M p 1 � < O G p r � � I 1 s N iY p e Jill N o �f Moo K S. •� p N G \ Lo I r a •�—�O3 � O3 dL � � ❑ ® iSI N ❑ ❑ � w $� j �l P -- - - - - -- -------------------------- --- - - - - -— S -- — — a L------------------- - - - - -- ------------------ ° = MATCHUNE SEE DWG #R1261NA9 ail A .�, p In lAW rT IR ED CLO W a i w -n ,o IMF � R � z zz ^�s�' 'Rt $$8'G"< Vii' O • o Co sm pC meDi 3°S° °vwn I�$ � y > ❑ �p D a` V 2 D A 3'$ oc 1°s ? S A Gi O m f+'i a' gin pg� Lip m 3z i Z �► n Cif �{ ao • ° °Q,c o „ F�_ f�*1 y (n q < (Ili> zC� •S•9•... g > Z co rnr- • = +9 r `, TAMIAMI TS �� _, � rwl unlu Q N 4 w N C 9 i z � �s �s or 'S 3' 8 � s �o® ®o �P 4 ® ®o r� � 3 € ®'�'I o (*TGI m K K B wQ o co D +1 cn n°' CZ OZ8o Own Gil > zm �G,Ir' 4t- � N� (A (7 C6 x A V YWI IIYF.: SYG171 YY 'R 0 rrt X A O ------------ - - - - -- 8LYN 3NnKoivv4 MATCHUNE SEE DWCa#R1261NA10 its if 0 fii ze s m � I a 1611 B21 ..i n v�ess In AO I 3D I S N W�� 10 1V1N P� ZZ ae' ^ozo ryov l � 4O D!w o g p, OAG aac e$ Yq 3 N t 4°b ac 8e� \Nk 3 Y ' 1 G7 mrjo'�'s°. 8 oa to gcax8°c 2 �RJ'3 ❑ 0 3NnKoivv4 MATCHUNE SEE DWCa#R1261NA10 its if 0 fii ze s m � I a 1611 B21 ..i n v�ess In AO I 3D I S N W�� 10 1V1N P� V f10Y w Iq m• ryov l � 4O W \ 1l.� V•'i N t l 1 , av�iio- + 0 / rri I QF—zL� 1 ryov l � 4O W \ 1l.� \Nk 0 / rri I QF—zL� 1 0 \Nk i 1 0 / rri I QF—zL� 1 0 i N 2 ❑ 0 m � Z n TAM"I TR r F nw. w.c: � /.w. /�uua Rui nML .s vx rr caw nnrw uw I Will -------- ---- - - - - -- L N � N 1 so m o a F __ -- MATCHLINE SEE 5 s b 0 0 cD 0 0 Q® O o CD ❑ El ❑ It rF Lq a Q cn Y 8 O O �1 1313 ® ® ® �� `•. J O F l I kiv co 11 Z o t 1 llbT (� Hall � p� i n 7 COp ,%AA m wigee a ip0 y $:c y D e ? .o M x g L m = = W U) a � m 33 \mm DA4��loaa° 1 QQCL7 �� m� n °3 LC nm q''Q O Q° m .(9� N a A ^ °a � •a. N `M L° z 9 IC O�b� Qa a V d� � 3 t O �� T/Jn{L11 1 �v In yy H 60 Li w� Z a Ga '$ > G F x _• pb `ag O �Ti1 • � r ^� �1 y i — 0 0 cD 0 0 Q® O o CD ❑ El ❑ It rF Lq a Q cn Y 8 O O �1 1313 ® ® ® �� `•. J O F l I kiv co 11 Z o t 'G#R_l261 NA9 � ---- - - - - - -- a�A +� ct z quo I $c I �A � N - ®: t w I 0 0 Q' 161.1 B21 i 7CU-N i rn 'mot I , • � N I N � C m I c, I N � I I I I I ' , 4 I 1 llbT (� Hall � p� i n 7 COp ,%AA m wigee a ip0 y $:c y D p ? .o M x g L m = = CNN o>> = 01 01 O 7 � m z..� m on..o. \mm DA4��loaa° QQCL7 �� M 3- !R11: ol n °3 LC nm q''Q O Q° m .(9� N a A ^ °a � •a. `M L° z 9 IC O�b� Qa C'� C xy m_r{ O �° �` 'c O �`3. K 3 t O �� T/Jn{L11 � �v In yy H 60 Li CL , T Z a 'G#R_l261 NA9 � ---- - - - - - -- a�A +� ct z quo I $c I �A � N - ®: t w I 0 0 Q' 161.1 B21 i 7CU-N i rn 'mot I , • � N I N � C m I c, I N � I I I I I ' , 4 I I I iO�w2 1 llbT (� g'$ y $:c y D p ? .o M x g L m = » yy I I iO�w2 1 llbT (� g'$ y $:c y D p ? Z 01 N W� � m m � I N g m � ❑ `M L° A K T/Jn{L11 � r W w 0 O V O C N O O 1611 gpl' m n m �Aw •� NNN � W C A A J A J A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A C GD CL ++ co mm <D N mm N N mm N N N mmmmmm N N N N N mm N N N mm N m m m N m n 0 O U O CTI + O + O + O + O + + 0 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 0 + O + O + + O O + O O O + O O Cif U U U U U -4 C." U U (T V1 M (I1 U Ln 11,0 t m `�° i W rn W W c°Di�c°fi+ N N mmmm mlmm� m mmm m m m m O oo �+ O-+ t t+ t t i t W U C/1 �7 UUU U�U'` (71U S a v1U V1 L_0+ n m D to > O V c U U cn 1 -+mm -i -i�� umiai n ° Zv -iOT �pry 9 A� c mm..` oc m z r m m z -� T SpcCC� GjG� -z z -mm y�, 0� Lq�m m� $m 'b Z nz�r r -1 n 4 m < D C 2 mm -�-+ fn Cl) "„ �z << 0(02 dc!< zN r- ADZ =m�z -4za z „ z rn -�—I m z m mm Om fom °z X — G) Zm� D n m z m m m m a. zz O O m n�� i o z m z m = �I c cNi <sti� m m m� z m A m O G7 _ z N z 70� {c M T O O M �� N � x �� Z Z'r ZM N W �D O O (n co v D DD Z 3 0) O fA� m m N D -• D O O m� � r D Z X nv O W � C �-� C r r mn Cl) m zm u' m m Om o Cl) �m ) z " M r z M < < z fi m to m cn M m n * ipC N O Cp A O A W OS O O O SN CON V OANO0C V O pp 08 CO (D O p 4+ O W �G r r N NOD V r po pp O t0 V dA + W f�pp W (�pp tl1 � W N 01 U N � "(-n Op ;:y,.; � U V S 8 O O O 01 -+ In O N O O O U V 0000:�o U fD V O ! y S OS V U O 00 V i� C. m NfDU W O V WOW W p W W U W W ilW W N p S jW CA � V OD (D 0 O 0 t70 W» N O0 5 O O O V c a N N A A W w W" N N V V O N N W 8 0, SOS 8W O 8W O 8N O O 8U O 8W �pNp tpNp pj W cn 8Om tlppi �A Op C178p O 80 O O O O O O O O S O O S O O O O O O O S S O O O O O N N q N U N A V W W N a1 $ 88 QQS C V o 30o O Ooo VoS o25So0ooc`58oVo S c 880 0 0 � N N O 41 O W O V ppp V N N W A N _OD N O O fO 000 00 O 000 t0 00 LOON Om ?010 000 N 000 O O �No S 8 O �m> O N r X .a t0 _ U W 0 tb p C to N AfUO CN7i ppW 00 ppW O 000 +0 pO OD NON ppO� -1A0 010 W O V1 C1� ppN W v0 V O ON OOOCDO co 00 OD W OOD O v A W N O O g Q p coo J tiry_ ,� ♦..tad p Y O iris x N a � O 0.0 O 0.0 00 O O 000 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 01 N U 4/ + GI1 N A N A W W -� V N V + 01 ION OD N OD END 01 W CJ1 WON W N j 880 00 0 880 QU 9.9 808 W 0 080 8 op�i 088000o08o08 _ 0 8 ° o m CD c N Q N aQ• m n m �Aw •� NNN � W C w w O_ O O .D ;-1 1 C 0 O W vC m m C CL T C 4 G 3 3 m x N 1611-11 B2-1'i G m �QJw p� W 7 C J J ww J ww J �i J i J J J J ► J w�w wwwwww� a mm mm tO`O`O mmmmmm0 po W pppo + I tp�(Jp 000 (Jp } N�Ci + p W W O � O �•� + + CAD mm 8)mmmm�. OD V IT T� o+ NN + NNNNN— +oo po4 + +�S -i -iZZ -1OO -i2MM -1— ° (� V 'mom ¢� N m m m Ni mo0 �i M yX ZZ O � 1 -D 'n �00 q A -iW �1D HUX �m � eEmm -n �x ADD o m �° � o �oo o ° 0cnm -a r{ ;0mm my Zmm ;a �n O m NU) m> W d Y J J J lapp Ol ANON N A qqV +00 V NO ill iD OOOOW WW�,D O� w W a Y N' N W W Vo O l0 -�+p .Na m m (Ompw�D1/ V+D V�N � pp Np fW0 W O ANA 000 V K D m 50 OaI A N f0 OD 1� N �oo W �N "OOON� WAN O 00 L WW O AA 6 �O O O O pa O O O coo O �pOp O p� O 00000 S �D N 0 0 V O6 OVD O O �Op CY O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .+ 0 O 3 � W w i0 c0 O 000 000 00 OOOOOpO I� V O OD O + 0 O q0 N 0 N 24 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O'OND V CIO, i 7C 10 r .a N ^ qi O O coo O O O 0 0 0 0 0 m7 �yy 1 M � ,4 O ®N �Jd a pp 000 00000 � N tv p C 0004V� W V V O V 3[ O O O coo O O O 00C)" O O 0 000000 i S �t00 V qo V N m m.ra {0 N DD m �(pO A ppWpp N coo � O O O t+J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v G m �QJw p� W 7 C March 4, 2010 "s -isofy "fts"ittaa 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 MINUTES 161192 Iq � I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order by Charles Arthur at 2:00 p.m. 11. Attendance Members: Bud Martin, Charles Arthur, Bruce Forman (Excused), Bill Gonnering County: Darryl Richard —MSTU Project Manager, Tessie Sillery- Operations Coordinator, Pam Lulich— Landscape Operations Manager Others: Chris Tilman — Malcolm Pimie, Jim Fritchey —CLM, Jeffrey Gower - Malcolm Pirnie, Lloyd Bowein - Public, Gina Downs - Pubic, Darlene Lafferty —Kelly Services III. Approval of Agenda Add. Xl. A. Election of Vice Chairman Bruce Forman moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes — February 4, 2010 Bud Martin moved to approve the minutes of February 4, 2010 as presented. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. Budget Report — Caroline Soto Tessie Sillery reviewed the following: (See attached) • Total Revenue $4,596,420.10 • Available Operating Expense $129,868.43 Darryl Richard stated Line Item #9 reflected Carry Forward $4,365,300.00 from the previous fiscal year. The Adjusted Balance Sheet was distributed. (See attached) VI. Utilities Report- Charles Arthur reported: (See attached) Channel Drive (Pilot Proiect)- Complete was reduced to (4) per FPL Plans. (See attached) 16 1182 V P Discussion took place on the significant cost reduction for Submersible Boxes. The Committee was in agreement to utilize Submersible Boxes, as in the event of flooding, a power outage would be prevented due to the construction (water proof seal) of the Submersible Box. Charles Arthur moved to approve including the Submersible Boxes. Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Phase I Darryl Richard reviewed RFQ 10 -5452 Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Underground Electrical Service Bid results for the conversion of 35 Parcels: (See attached) 0 7 Vendors submitted Bid solicitation o iTran Partners was the lowest qualified bidder $39,312.00 - iTran Partners has mixed reviews on other Projects - Noted Joe Bonness is a partner of iTran - Bonness has satisfactory performance on other Projects o Comparable data is not available on subsequent (low bid) Vendors from the Bid solicitation o Staff will set benchmarks for iTran to track progress and adherence on timelines to meet Project goals Bud Martin moved to accept the iTran Partners Bid ($39,312.00) understanding that (Staff will monitor closely to ensure compliance of Project goals.) Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 4-0 Discussion ensued concerning Phase II Project and equitable areas to be included in the Project. It was concluded recommendations were needed from John Lehr on the Project Scope for Phase II. Landscape Maintenance Report Jim Fritchey reported the following: • Ongoing Maintenance is being performed • Sod damage due to utility vehicles parking in the grass Staff requested photographs from CLM of utility vehicles parked in the grass. VII. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard (See attached) A. FY -2011 Budget Review and Approval Darryl Richard reviewed the draft Budget. (See attached) Dick Lydon arrived 2.55 p.m. 2 16I In 1 4 Charles Arthur expressed p dissatisfaction with FY11 Improvements General $5,928,436.00 (power line burial) as he perceives all monies will not be spent in FY 2011. After much discussion it was concluded the Committee can request Budget adjustments as needed throughout the Fiscal Year and the Budget will remain as presented. Bud Martin moved to approve FY -2011 Budget as presented. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. VIII. Landscape Maintenance Report—CLM -Jim Fritchey— Previously discussed under Vl. IX. Old Business - None X. Update Report A. Maintenance —Bruce Forman —None B. Tax Analysis —Bud Martin —None XI. New Business A. Election of Vice Chairman Bud Martin nominated Dick Lydon as Vice Chairman. There are no other nominations. Charles Arthur stated nominations are closed and Dick Lydon is the Vice Chairman. X11. Public Comment—None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 3:21 p.m. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory Committee L;l JA_ , Charles Arthur, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board /Com ittee on Lf - (- 10 as presented or amended The next meeting is April 1, 2010 at 2:00 P.M. ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625 111TH Ave. Naples, FL. f 0 r N LUJ m � � � 2 - aLL_a Z a W N W W M O o o O C N Q Q aOD N m 1WO g o N o C` Q N W W - 100 (` V < w w w w w w w w w w w d v °i tai m m co m O W 16 r r r Nm to oW N M m W M m 1W0 w w w w wWk Wl w w w wlv wwwww1Nlwwwwwiw O O O W O O O O pNO�('�n O O m I m M N 8088' O too o O N tNO OpOiO m0� Q W OW U) 10 N m N pQ Q 8 o W W tm Q N 10 M c0 W f0 m 01 c0 O m W r Q W p N N W 0 0 �O O m O wwwww�w�wwwNw1w U 1611 B21 F- � W wj a¢LL m ¢moo zOC�w m� Z o wcn��C, ww W z �?ZZ z z aUti a Er w? Z°° O O m m> U j W w F U Lu Z(D � O° W d r T z ¢ Wz U 000zF-033W-W�F �, -M co(DUiv °z�WUC=iwz¢'? QQOa W �¢awFw mapptj m> w 0C7UazC9 °wmz ¢W >_mm(7 W �m > 2 W U LL LL LL LL W IWL Q' LL W T U U O CJ U¢ Z J Z U W° W? W, W W W W LL Lij ir a H W w> Z Q W Q !a- < LLU' >(r Z= v~i � U W ? Z 0 2 Q W H � F z z WUr WU' z W W d UOLL ZZ� F- f-- V UZ� O w 0i?� 060. aOw�?tai�<�aUwo WO �U a � mmX W W 0 * N M Q n tD r W pi O - N M Q h tp A aD W O N Q to A W to O N t7 Q h 1p A W W O N 17 N tV N N N N ... o n O LL p W j 7 J O m mca r� ~t4oto� LL LL p T T T LL LL LL W tp �'• mO of N N 1n C r ' N O N N w o N W W M o pNO�('�n O O m I m M N 8088' too o O V m0� OW n N N pQ Q 8 r W O W W W N o Q M N N 10 M c0 W f0 m 01 c0 O m W r Q W p N N W 0 0 �O O m O 0 r N W W p N O i0 O r o. O O O i0 N N n r0 m M O a) N m �p t0 10o O r Q' N 0 W M 0 r0 Q N N N 10 M M .- W O N M N N N r w w w w w diww wtAwwww ww w w ww ww ww w ww w to c C O o N m n iU M N E ° - d 0 Omm a mo W N o m m1nNMM a N W W No W o mM W W m °r r W r n o U ¢oN¢Q¢¢¢¢¢ �zo�zMzzzzz ornoo¢¢ 'o9'm? Yzz1"tpoomMMzz`QL''T QM ap O1oWr ¢¢W to 10 o ¢ _ O O W oar dm F- uS n $ aon(� Z m ° O p O O o o O ,), O o O o o a QQd N_ W M N Q M O 10 n N N W W W n Q Q W N Q W O W W 10 10 N 0 m Q m O O N W W M W W N W W N W W W n Q r W W W Q On N Wnn �_ W W W n OnnO WO W W.- N M W010 WO WO 0 Q U O O W P Q Mo M N¢ Z Z Z Z Z _M O 0000OOOSO00 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Oo00 ppp O Oo O O oo O O O O O— O O O O Z N Q W W Q Q W W Q Q to Lo Q Q to to Q Q N W Q Q W Q to W Q Q W Q Nh Q Q Q oNo Q Q Q `Q W Q 10o Q v°�lotoo Q Q Q cc m m W U U N W U v_ m N U (! c m _� yy C 3 c c C� N N m m N N m a) — m ai ym m cm�00� c u) )) u) u)U7m u) u) - c U O L L f0 l9 t0 l0 _ O m C N m c C m c .- m <0 j .- :m �{� .p C Y N U U U U .0 N U U U c ', m Y ... — m a� N Q (U > C m U o m O J J E E` C c U J d v m m _ — W N Z H 3�c7c�0Ov�wr- >> W m - CO CO F- t- m wLL�wulU O O Um y 0 UU 0 0 UUtn 0 y amp E E 1,S3 rJnLL° c c o o 3 p N= C m m J J c0 4S M 4'{ 06 4'3 j N O D ((pp m m C � N N W N m ad MS O Z m of w m 41 m 3 N N 3 3 N N 3 3 v U o yj C7 m a E E E c E? c w z U 2'2m°aa°aoao m �U E as as C7c�pm �� 'm i E E X x m m m m m m w in w c m m o E E EEC n H N J q c ` O =E E Eav W W v 0 0 a a 0 v I J H �r a m "t c>.o O O o v ogcaanN¢¢c o V p p y O 2 a> O O O O m y 0 SL m o m m h m y l0 cfi l0 m m UULL LLLLU_1iLLLL LLLLSS c c-`'Y �� z z z ammu) W O i o a0 0 O 1� m M &o o O pp o 0 n 0 m O o o o 0 W— r 10 0 0 0 0 0 o to M Q f� r O m r n m O Q O O O 10 Q ID O M O o o o o N O M N O O O O O n n N r o 0 0 0 O .-- M W Q W O O O N N N Q O Cl) O N `-� `-' N W W W O `-' N N W W V n n N (V o 0 O t0 O O _^ to W W N co .- N M n N n ry W 10 Cl) f� Q 0 S 10 .r- r n 1/I Q Q Q W w w w w w w to w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w N W O 10 o W o n co r m o O O s} M O m O o o • -O W . -N to O O W OWmtot0 h m N O! O N O 4 O 8 Nto Q N 10 M O" o W O N O W N O co r OD f` (p O O n O W O Q M Q Q l0 O r Ih S O N n r M t0 N W O Q 2 Q O Q W 01 W W co N N W N O M A M m M O p O n m m t0 A .6 .- N N to W N M oc Q co n Q co M M W O t0 (b A N N — N C N N w wf9 f9w w 69 w w w fA 6% 6% w w Nw w w N v) 6* ww w ww wwN o Q p :m W8 � vtowu,OO O Q i n ci r r r r r M W m �m Mm m m ti�mm r N m c0 c, 0 A Q N 11 ci m O O m N w w w w w w di w w «) d) w t9 WW dl 1ff t� iF W w N to w w w w w N N O O o S 0 oo 0 o o o. o 0 O O O r S S o o o O O o O O o O o o N A o 000 0880000 06o800, O o 0 o r 0 8 8 0 0 O O O O O O O M O M N N p 0880000 o °8 a, Ln O 0 o W N O W N O W W Q .- h N O W M W l `- W W n m N r M o W to M n Q c N 10 0 Ili In w <n N N N N M n n O h ui W wi N w w w w w to w w w w w w w w w w w w w LL w w w w N w w w w w N F- � W wj a¢LL m ¢moo zOC�w m� Z o wcn��C, ww W z �?ZZ z z aUti a Er w? Z°° O O m m> U j W w F U Lu Z(D � O° W d r T z ¢ Wz U 000zF-033W-W�F �, -M co(DUiv °z�WUC=iwz¢'? QQOa W �¢awFw mapptj m> w 0C7UazC9 °wmz ¢W >_mm(7 W �m > 2 W U LL LL LL LL W IWL Q' LL W T U U O CJ U¢ Z J Z U W° W? W, W W W W LL Lij ir a H W w> Z Q W Q !a- < LLU' >(r Z= v~i � U W ? Z 0 2 Q W H � F z z WUr WU' z W W d UOLL ZZ� F- f-- V UZ� O w 0i?� 060. aOw�?tai�<�aUwo WO �U a � mmX W W 0 * N M Q n tD r W pi O - N M Q h tp A aD W O N Q to A W to O N t7 Q h 1p A W W O N 17 N tV N N N N ... o n O LL p W j 7 J O m mca r� ~t4oto� LL LL p T T T LL LL LL W tp �'• mO of N N 1n C r ' N O N N w 1611 "B21 Report for: April 1, 2010 Meeting Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Proiect Status (VA -33)- ACTIVE — Conversion of 2 Commercial properties to underground (individual meter connection) 04 -01 -10 Bentley Electric is to provide quote under annual contract 09 -5325 (VA -32)- ACTIVE — Conversion of 31 residential properties to underground (individual meter connection) 04 -01 -10 ITran Partners will receive Notice To Proceed as soon as FPL confirmation of material supply has occurred. Staff has meet with ITran Partners on several occasions and they have been coordinating with FPL /Staff/Engineer Consultant to properly identify any potential changes in the scope of the original work as outlined in bid. Potential changes involve unforeseen conditions such as `non - standard' meter installations and alternatives for placement of conduit required for new electrical. (VA -30)- ACTIVE — Comcast "Phase One" Coordination 04 -01 -10 Staff is waiting quote from Comcast regarding the `cost' to be payable by the MSTU for conversion of Comcast Utilities to underground; (i.e. taking the lines off the poles) (VA -27)- ACTIVE — Phase One "Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement" (UFCA) 11 -10 -09 COMPLETED for Channel Drive (only); UFCA approved by BCC for `Channel Drive' 01 -07 -10 PENDING; UFCA agreement pending for overall Phase One (Engineering Cost Estimate pending from FPL); UFCA for overall project requires "Binding Cost Estimate" from FPL. (VA -26)- ACTIVE — Malcolm Pirnie; Review preliminary design provided by FPL 04 -01 -10 Preliminary plans have achieved `major' project objectives; pending is resolution of 4 easements which are required for the project to proceed as outlined in `Preliminary Plans' (VA -19) — ACTIVE - ONGOING — On Call Services — Malcolm Pirnie Engineering On -going services for meeting attendance and preliminary investigation regarding underground power line installation. 04 -01 -10 Ongoing On -Call Engineering Services by Malcolm Pirnie Engineering (VA -18) — ACTIVE - ONGOING- — Maintenance Contract — Award to Commercial Land; Annual Maintenance `base contract' per Quote 04 -01 -10 Ongoing Maintenance Services by Commercial Land Maintenance 16-1 1 B2 I Brief summary of "Underground Utilities Conversion" project activity Since December 11, 2007 Initial BCC Approval of Agreement 12 -11 -07 BCC Approval of ROW Agreement with FPL date Dec. 11, 2007 03 -26 -08 TEAM TELECONFERNCE (FPL, COMCAST, COUNTY, MSTU (C.ARTHUR), VBPOA (JACKIE BAMMEL, RWA, MALCOLM PIRNIE) 03 -10 -08 PUBLIC MEETING AT ST. JOHNS 05 -12 -08 Review of RWA Survey w/ Malcolm Pirnie and C. Arthur 06 -05 -09 Confirmation of 4 residential units affected by "Channel Drive Pilot Project" with FPL (Ryan Drum); Field Meeting to review project; Affected Properties are: NANCE, HAROLD 283 CHANNEL BASTANI, KEN K 261 CHANNEL KOHLER, RUTH H 227 CHANNEL REYNOLDS TR, HENRY E 213 CHANNEL 06 -23 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE: Hart's Electrical begins work per PO 4500107832 09 -11 -08 Review of 1st RWA Survey Submittal Sept 11, 2008 09 -12 -08 Confirmation of FPL Red -Line Comments for survey Sep. 12, 2008 09 -17 -08 TEAM TELECONFERENCE (FPL, MALCOLM PIRNIE) 09 -22 -08 FPL "Pot Hole" digs recommended locations identified Sept 22, 2008 11 -21 -08 TEAM MEETING (C. ARTHUR, J. BAMMEL, MALCOLM PIRNIE) 02 -02 -09 FPL Approval of Survey Feb. 4, 2009 02 -04 -09 Staff request $13,027.00 Engineering Deposit Invoice Feb. 4, 2009 03 -09 -09 PUBLIC MEETING AT ST. JOHNS 04 -02 -09 MSTU Committee makes motion to proceed with "Channel Drive Project" 04 -10 -09 Verification of easements for 'private property' April 10, 2009 04 -28 -09 BCC Approval of Modified Ordinance adding installation of powerline within `easement' to private properties. This is to allow installation of power from ROW Line to private property connection. 1611821' 06 -01 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE: Ryan Drumm (FPL) request .pdf of ROW Agreement for review; forwarded via email 06 -25 -09 FPL Draft Design submittal Phase One Plans 06 -26 -09 Staff request (1) Cadd file of Phase One Submittal; (2) Review indicates drawings are not sufficient for bidding purposes; (3) Full size prints 'to scale' requested' 06 -26 -09 TELECONFERNCE ; CALL IN FROM FPL (John Lehr, FPL; Troy Todd, FPL; Ryan Drumm, FPL; Darryl Richard, Collier County) Troy Todd (FPL) clarifies that "tariff charges" apply to Channel Drive Project (ref: Tariff No. 6 per PSC approved Tariff); $566.59 for the 4 properties on Channel Drive 07 -27 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE: Hart's Electrical completed electrical from ROW to Home /Resident for the following Channel Drive Address': 213,283,263 and 227 08 -07 -09 RYAN DRUMM SUBMITTAL — Channel Drive UFCA; and'Draft' plans; Ryan confirms no existing underground FPL Facilities on Channel Drive 09 -16 -09 RYAN DRUMM 2nd SUBMITTAL — Channel Drive UFCA (dated 8- 18 -09); and 'Final' Channel Drive plans (marked 'check set') 09 -17 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE RESIDENT COORDINATION: Kent Smith called on behalf of Mr. Nance to report that he has received the mailing /letter regarding Channel Drive project and that Mr. Nance chooses to 'not participate' at this time due to financial concerns. He mentioned his wife was in the hospital and that he did not have the money to pay the $650.00 for his "private conversion" to underground. 09 -22 -09 TELECONFERENCE (FPL, COUNTY LEGAL, STAFF, MALCOLM PIRNIE, C. ARTHUR) Recommendations: FPL to submit 'agreement' in word format (if possible); staff to proceed with obtaining payment for'private' underground conversion from property owners Nance and Bastani on Channel Drive. FPL confirms that survey has been accepted and 'Final Plans' are pending for Phase One Project. 09 -21 -09 Ryan Drumm provides FPL Cost Breakdown for Channel Drive; Staff intends to process payment for an "FPL Invoice" upon BCC approval of UFCA (Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement) for Channel Drive; UFCA is pending completion of 'legal review' TOTAL CHANNEL DRIVE COST: $23,242.00 09 -23 -09 Message from Mr. Kent Smith (Legal Representative for Mr. Nance (Property Owner at 283 Channel Drive); Mr. Smith stated that the 'owner' has 'no desire' to underground his private connection, and furthermore has 'no intention of spending any money on his home' (at 283 Channel Drive) related to the power line underground conversion. 09 -24 -09 COMCAST COORDINATION; Channel Drive Plans forwarded to Comcast for quote of underground conversion for Comcast overhead utilities 1611u821, 10 -01 -09 Phase One "Legal Description" forwarded to FPL for confirmation of FPL formal acceptance of 'Legal Description' per'Right of Way Agreement Section 2. Sub - section (d)' 10 -05 -09 FPL ACCEPTANCE OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION; John Lehr via email confirms FPL's official acceptance of the legal description for the Phase One Project; Staff request confirmation of "EXISTING FPL FACILITIES" per'Right of Way Agreement Section 2. Sub - section (e)) documentation of all existing FPL underground facilities within the ROW that will not be included under ROW agreement (for Exhibit C) 10 -06 -09 COMCAST COORINDINATION: Mark Cook informs County Staff that Comcast has re- assigned project review to himself and Andy Vaspasiano; Mark indicates he and Andy are working on "Channel Drive" Cost estimate. * *COMCAST CONFIRMS 100% of conversion of Comcast Utilities is to be by the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU as the project sponsor. Comcast indicates that there will be no 'reductions' in cost due to 'depreciation' of equipment /existing installation. Services are identified as 'new' and 'not in need of upgrade'. Installation of underground conduit for Comcast is through Comcast contractor managed 'entirely by Comcast'. 10 -09 -09 Malcolm Pirnie submits letter for review of Project Drawing submittals and recommendation related to which party should install the underground conduit for Phase One Project 10 -12 -09 County Legal provides legal opinion from Nabors Giblin & Nickerson, 1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 200, Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (letter dated 10 -8 -09 Gregory T. Stewart 10 -12 -09 RWA Proposal submitted for survey of Phase II, III, and IV 10 -13 -09 TELECONFERENCE (C. ARTHUR, STAFF, MALCOLM PIRNIE) 10 -14 -09 FPL SUBMITTAL; PLANS FOR PHASE ONE PROJECT (Marked 'Preliminary') 10 -14 -09 John Lehr notifies staff (via phone call evening of 10- 14 -09) that the 'one page' agreement submitted on 8 -7 -09 has to be revised to a new 4 page agreement (delivery pending from FPL) 10 -22 -09 John Hart Electrical received check for $650.00 for Bastani on Channel Drive 'Private Can Conversion to underground. 10 -28 -09 Bastani Channel Drive private conversion project completed by Hart's Electrical 10 -28 -09 Revised UFCA Agreement received from FPL for BCC approval on Nov. 10, 2009 11 -03 -09 Confirmation of Comcast cost for Channel Drive Project is $4,000.00 per FPL plans. 11 -03 -09 Scott Teach and Michelle Arnold teleconference with Nabors Giblin & Nickerson results of teleconference to be presented at 11 -05 -09 MSTU meeting. 1611821 11 -05 -09 Discussion Nabors Giblin & Nickerson legal consult related to 'underground conversion' and potential 'ordinance'; Committee makes motion to direct staff to pursue Ordinance for the MSTU to pay for homeowner's conversion and Ordinance to 'require' participation and mechanism to address non - participation. 11 -10 -09 BCC Approval of UFCA Agreement with FPL for Channel Drive 'pilot project' 11 -10 -09 Field Meeting to review Proposed "Easements" for Phase One Project; Ryan Drum FPL was in attendance with Chris Tilman, Darryl Richard, Jeff Gower, and Charlie Arthur. Inspection indicated that all of the easements proposed were not necessary, and that `alternative' site planning would locate the electrical boxes within existing ROW. Follow - up meeting with John Lehr scheduled for December 8, 2009 (1 pm) 12 -08 -09 Meeting with FPL (John Lehr, Kate Donofrio, Ryan Drum) and Malcolm Pirnie (Chris Tilman, Jeff Gower) and County Staff (Darryl Richard); Review of easements proposed; approximately 50% of easements were determined to not be necessary; However, the other 50% of easements require (1) detailed re- survey, (2) placement of stakes in field identifying ROW and property lines, and (3) re- identification of utilities in the field (call into Florida One Call system) Staff will coordinate with Malcolm Pirnie and RWA for necessary project activity; additional proposal from RWA is necessary for scope of work identified. Proposal from Malcolm Pirnie for `easement acquisition' is also recommended at this time in anticipation of possible requirement for easements. 12 -15 -09 BCC Approval of Ordinance Modification to add 'private' connections to MSTU Ordinance thus allowing MSTU to complete 100% of private meter connections as required to obtain 25% GAF waiver from FPL. 01 -04 -10 Draft Letter to 37 residents requiring underground conversion for meter connection under review 01 -04 -10 Channel Drive Project Under Construction 01 -19 -10 Letter sent to 35 residents in Phase One Project that have 'overhead' meter connections; staff is monitoring confirmation of receipt of this mailing by Certified Mail 02 -02 -10 Channel Drive Project 90% completed; missing 2 transformer boxes pending from FPL; Comcast is 100% installed on Channel Drive. 02 -02 -11 RWA Delivers 13 exhibits for locations for transformers and switch cabinets; These exhibits will be used in review of proposed easements by FPL in Preliminary Design 02 -02 -12 Malcolm Pirnie provides Final Bid Documents for Electrical Conversion of 35 properties in Phase One Project which have existing overhead meter connections. Staff preparing bid for advertisement and release to 'all bidders' not restricted to annual contractors. 161 1 R82 I'4 03 -04 -10 MSTU Committee awards bid to ITran Partners, Inc. for underground conversion of 31. private residential units. It was determined that only 2 additional properties require underground conversion. Since the 2 additional properties are 'Commercial Property' and will require extensive review and investigation prior to conversion — these will be handled through Collier County Annual Electrical Contractor. 03 -11 -10 Meeting with ITran Partners to review 31 properties to be undergrounded. Some properties were noted as 'possible change order items'; namely saw cutting concrete driveway and re- installation of concrete slab over newly installed conduit. Malcolm Pirnie is assisting staff in review of each property and related 'issues' that may require further review. 03 -24 -10 EASEMENT ACQUISITION MEETING: 9895 Gulf Shore Dr.; Laplaya LLC; Jeremy Arnold, PE; Barron Collier Enterprises Summary: Mr. Anrold was very agreeable to granting easement 03 -26 -10 EASEMENT ACQUISITION MEETING: 10352 Gulf Shore Dr.; Mr. Epright; Summary: Mr. Epright is not agreeable to all 4 boxes being located on his property. He! would like for the County to pursue alternative of placement of "2 boxes North of his property line — on the Condo Property" (10420 GULF SHORE DR; "Vanderbilt Bay Condominiums); Staff will coordinate with Engineer Consultant in bringing an alternative solution to the property owner; after preliminary review /approval by FPL as a viable alternative 03 -26 -10 Meeting with ITran Partners to review furthermore in depth' some of the technical issues related to each property conversion. Further coordination with FPL (Troy Todd) to identify certain items which appear to be 'non- standard' installations and modifications to FPL's meter connections is required. 03 -30 -10 All Tariff charges for the 31 properties have been approved for payment to FPL. Note there is a $566.59 Tariff charge for each of the 31 properties. Material supply for conduit will be by FPL for the residential units. With wire being 'pulled' by FPL. FPL will notify County once material supply has been received and is in stock. 03 -30 -10 EASEMENT ACQUISITION MEETING: 9635 Gulf Shore Dr.; Casa Grande Summary: Pam Pettit (Manager) and the Board President of Casa Grande. Appeared to be in agreement with granting easement. Was in favor of project. 03 -31 -10 COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CONVERSION: Meeting with Bentley Electric to review project details for conversion of 2 Commercial Properties (1) 9140 GULF SHORE DR (Hotel /INN) (2) 10540 Gulf Shore Dr (mulit -unit condo) Bentley Electric to provide quote under annual contract 09 -5325 On Call Electrical Services Contract 03 -31 -10 Malcolm Pirnie Provides layout alternatives (Options 1, 2, and 3) for Mr. Epright's property. All 3 alternatives require an easement of some sort. FPL appears to be 1611 B21 interested in Option #1 which places 2 boxes to the north parcel and 2 boxes on /near Mr. Epright's property. (requires easement from both property owners) 1611 B21"1 1 _ , I II I I „ Irl a Zv tW 1611 B21"1 1 .,y�r�1 I 1611 B214 fill! I II II 1611 B214 -I a. 9 ;,; (9 fl 0 41 II I II II II II I II I II 1611 821 4L ILE X 0 April 1, 2010 1611 g2� v"a.,dter BmeA M.s.T.a. Advisory Cosmsmittaa 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 MINUTES I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order by Charles Arthur at 2:01 p.m. A quorum was not established. II. Attendance Members: Dick Lydon, Bud Martin, Charles Arthur, Bruce Forman (Excused), Bill Gonnering (Excused) County: Darryl Richard -MSTU Project Manager, Tessie Sillery- Operations Coordinator, Caroline Soto-Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager, David Buchheit Pathways Others: Chris Tilman - Malcolm Pirnie, Jim Fritchey -CLM, Darlene Lafferty- Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Approved under: V. IV. Approval of Minutes - March 4, 2010 It was noted Bruce Forman was present at the March 4th meeting. Approved under. V. V. Budget Report - Caroline Soto reviewed the following: (See attached) • Collected Ad Valorem Tax $837,291.44 • Improvements General $74,331.29 Bud Martin arrived 2:05 p.m. A quorum was established. Charles Arthur questioned paid items from $74,331.29 Improvements General Expenditures. Staff noted Tariff Fees (for 31 Properties) were included in the Actual Expenditures Improvements General Line Item. Bud Martin moved to approve the agenda as presented. Second by Dick Lydon. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. 16I 1 110' Dick Lydon moved to approve the minutes of March 4, 2010 as amended. Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. VI. Utilities Report- Charles Arthur (See attached) Darryl Richard gave the following update on the Utilities Project: o ITRAN is under contract o NTP has not been issued Chris Tilman stated boat dock lighting and power wench connections to meter(s) (installed by Homeowners) are non compliant with Collier County Code. Additionally the Electrician will not be able to restore the improper connections. • Non compliant connections will be disconnected when the new meter is installed • Homeowner(s) were contacted and will be updated on non compliance (by Staff) and disconnection After discussion it was determined the non compliant Code issues are outside the MSTU Ordinance and must be paid by the Homeowner(s). Channel Drive (Pilot Project) Charles Arthur reported a sinkhole on Homeowner's property requires repair. Darryl Richard will notify Kate Donofrio of the necessary sinkhole repair. Easement Acquisition Chris Tilman stated (4) Property owners were contacted on Easement Acquisition. Noted 3 of the Owners were in favor of the Project: • La Playa • Vanderbilt Resort • Casa Grande • Private Property Owner (Mr. Epright) expressed dissatisfaction with the high number of components that will be installed on his property • Options to relocate some components (from Mr. Epright's property) to a different location were reviewed (pending FPL approval) (See attachments) Option 1 o Is preferred by FPL - (2) components on Mr. Epright's property - (2) components on Vanderbilt Bay Property Exhibit #3 o (1) Transformer installed across the Street o (1) Transformer on Vanderbilt Bay o (1) Switch cabinet and (1) Fuse Box on Mr. Epright's property 2 . 161I B2 I Exhibit #2 o A row of (4) Components requires easement (behind the ROW) for FPL access - Perceived by the Committee as unreasonable After much discussion it was concluded Mr. Epright will be advised of the available options after coordination with FPL. Phase 11 Chris Tilman reported a boundary map was requested of John Lehr. Charles Arthur requested Chris Tillman complete the Easement Acquisitions by the May 6th meeting. Chris Tillman noted Mr. Epright will be on vacation from May - July. VII. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard (See attached) VIII. Landscape Maintenance Report-CLM -Jim Fritchey Jim Fritchey reported: • Damaged Turf area (by Pavers and Utility workers) repairs are underway • Plant Material and Turf Fertilization will be conducted in April Dick Lydon reported: • Tree branches are obscuring the stop sign (South of Tradewinds) • Periodically the Irrigation system is running at 2:00 p.m. Darryl Richard stated Irrigation is scheduled to operate during evening hours. He requested notification by the Committee when the Irrigation System operates during the day. IX. Old Business -None X. Update Report A. Maintenance -Bruce Forman -None B. Tax Analysis -Bud Martin -None XI. New Business David Buchheit was present to answer questions on the Vanderbilt Drive Greenway Project (Bonita Beach Road to 111tH ) Bud Martin stated he was in favor of the Project. He expressed the following concerns: • The amount of recreational traffic that will be routed to areas not capable of handling the traffic flow and bike traffic • The necessity to improve Road capacity to accommodate the increase in traffic flow (between Gulf Shore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Drive) 1691 B2 1`a David Buchheit responded Funds are only available for installation of Rest Stations and Greenway Project. The Committee questioned if it was documented that available Funds were dedicated for the Greenway Project. David Buchheit replied: • Allocation of monies was specified in the Settlement Agreement • Bridges were funded by the Settlement Agreement • Remaining monies ($600,000.00) was allocated for a Safety Project It was determined coordination with FPL on the timing for installation for Line burial and the Greenway Project is required. Dick Lydon confirmed with David Buchheit that the Greenway Project was not included in the original Bridge negotiations. He perceived monies should be spent on Beautification in needed areas of Collier County based on the economy. Bud Martin suggested installing a sidewalk on the east side of Gulf Shore Dr. as it will connect access to both Beaches. XII. Public Comment—None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 3:28 p.m. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory Committee M IA These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented X or amended The next meeting is May 6, 2010 at 2:00 P.M. ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625 111 T" Ave. Naples, FL. 4 B2 I A A A W W W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N N N N 8 O (D 00 + V T U A W N -1 O (D OD V O) U A W N� OTOmmv�f%z�PvvO�ZCZm O'ImDD�� mZ z omc (mil m � �� m MXmDXznz�c- DimOOmo�<pD D �0x%% z mm m rx rA mmm (nvl�0 rT={ -iz�m� T (n=DD W < x OMOM T� D< �mmD(n2=m� 'T.(J >Tx W MAMMT r To ��TT Cm -1 >O p� mm� mp O� z W cn<mD Dmnzc)mmOv�ZCmnm m mvmiOOmm m DD G) O nD� tn�_ -ciz mnwomnz n'mc{ G�zm�G)p� m.-i��TT O- oOr -mi zczil(zi� c �m vmr�00 m({"zm ��(z)�mm mn<��OO c0 �mm v "�c�iv Z m zKZZZm zmmm - �iOm�A Z vvDD�D �O mX Z D�D� y no m z m O O T Z (Cl) D E W m m m X V�1 X m m m X r r 0 ti m� nD roc W z ZnD m� --I m *AIfAIfAl(AIfA fA IfA l(A I fA I fAI fA l(A (A fA fA fA fA fA fA (A (A fA fA fA fA w Be w w fA llfA l(A lfn fA fA fA cn I(AI(A fA (A fA fA F--1 U _ N U U (D O (D O) A rn O W CA (b (D O U A A J O CD -N ID Oo tD to O CA fn (A (A fA fA (A fA fA (A fA fA fA En (A (A (A fA fA (A b TTT() -+ A A W O 0 —Cl J U U J U W N N A J N W N W J J O U W U O D U A _ W O U O U N U N J U O) O N U (b .P J O Cn V O O w� U 0 0 0 U Cn � U 0 U U O O O W O W O O O O V O (D (A W J O J N O O O O O O 8 O O O O O o O O N O 0 N 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N 0 N 0 O N O 0 0 0 O O Cl O O, O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O O O O , O O O E 164 I (A 1'A 1,69 to I fA I w I to I (AI I cn fA (A <A fA (A (A (A (A (fl fA (A (A (n (A CA '.'. fn 11 f 1469 1 (A (A fn (A f 911n i A (A fA 16916S U _ N A (D O (D O) A rn O W CA (b (D O W O J O J O CD -N ID Oo tD to O CA fn (A (A fA fA (A fA fA (A fA fA fA En (A (A (A fA fA (A b TTT() W n< 7< G fA Efl (A 69,69 (fl fA N _� N C 7 C1 0) 0) A 0 0 ww(n O w� O O O CD CD O 3 V 0 0 0 0 (WD WJ O w N D D N O N (0 (lt U a: O N 1 O N O V O U O m (D O D (O N N N to CD O N p V N fb! 7 U U O � O cam' W O tD N OD p � T T T O COD co Oj O T — T T lD A C J 7 W X N N LT (7 fD CD a < N N N C C N f0 D JD .n O (n co w o (� J -I Q D r 7 W W i W U ((1 J J U lk N W O I co J D 0 O D CD V N Z) O ■ff� W W J O N 'con � O O V J (D N N U (O W N V O O? (A A OD W N Oo A U N D) J W W co W O w O J O) N W N U J Cb D) U U O O W O CO O N O W U N A U co U O (l) O O W 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 CO W OD OD A O O (O O cn fD A O D) O (n O (n U W J fA j fA fA fA fA fA fA ffl fA (A (A (A fA (A fA (A (A fA (A (A fA W W � _ A A N N N N O N CA U N W J J 0 0� J J N (P A U O O U W W "Z N N O W O A (P W W N J N O O O O N W W W 00 0 0 -,1 O N N J O O O O D U p O W O O O O W J J N W A O O O O O O W U 8.9 0 0� O O m - A O W O o 0 0 0 0 v O O A 0 0 O O v ME 0E ) fA fA fA 1.91 O) O 69 fA 69 (A 0 N � � O O (P A J aW (O (A U W co W J U (D cn W (lt --! (Olt w � O v 69 fA fA fA fA fA fA (A fA fA A _ N (D O (D O) A rn O W CA (b (D O W O J O J O CD -N ID O Co to O CA fn (A (A fA fA (A fA fA (A fA fA fA En (A (A (A fA fA (A b W W J O N 'con � O O V J (D N N U (O W N V O O? (A A OD W N Oo A U N D) J W W co W O w O J O) N W N U J Cb D) U U O O W O CO O N O W U N A U co U O (l) O O W 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 CO W OD OD A O O (O O cn fD A O D) O (n O (n U W J fA j fA fA fA fA fA fA ffl fA (A (A (A fA (A fA (A (A fA (A (A fA W W � _ A A N N N N O N CA U N W J J 0 0� J J N (P A U O O U W W "Z N N O W O A (P W W N J N O O O O N W W W 00 0 0 -,1 O N N J O O O O D U p O W O O O O W J J N W A O O O O O O W U 8.9 0 0� O O m - A O W O o 0 0 0 0 v O O A 0 0 O O v ME 0E ) fA fA fA 1.91 O) O 69 fA 69 (A 0 N � � O O (P A J aW (O (A U W co W J U (D cn W (lt --! (Olt w � O v 69 fA fA fA fA fA fA (A fA fA A a (J D CA W O CA (b (D O 0 0 A Cb A W 5; J O CD O W W (D A O O (11 (n v 0) O w n O 3 3 (D 7 N m D 7 n a� D O d m - a (D D W c M l< Z M Z O) v0° c, -� A 0("'3 G7 c TTT() n< 7< G O O U a j (D N(_� a) O _� N C 7 C1 0) 0) 0 0 0 O O O O O O CD CD O 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 CD " C D D O (D 0 0 () tU O O (m(_� O O -{ to N T p) N y to m .-. N F .-. N a N 0a N a n1 s CD CL N a D) m x m x 3 3 � N (U x Q (D m >> C CD (n N G) to 7 O 3 3 v m 3 v 3 (D m 3- (U 7 (� m m m m 7 0 0 0 0 O m (o d n() O (' m y m m w_ m s c °c m :03 Z S 3 3 CD (D 3 (D 7 cD - m :L1 �i w O O (D m m m r r '� 3 (D O CD SN SM O CD CD — — C 90 90 90 90 90 ° m m T c N * y Z Z n m- _r _r _r r r a �= CD vt to N— N N S S S to N 0 7 0 0 7 ro -0 C/3 Tr vv (nc�c�c�c�(n(n(�SC�mmgE-n --q --q m (n 00G)G)X K� X y C 3 0 m 7= 0 0 0. n n C n N (D N N N CD D) N N r 0 r @ 7 N N 7 C N � l e S J N i �. �. (p 3 O j' (D O m n m (D w ^O—. .0—. .C—. v m -' o n �i m m �' 0 s s m °° Q, °- N y fD C .. O N D) N 7 'S O Cn 0 CD CD 7 .Z7 (D .Z7 N (O CD O (D O (D N N !n N (D CD (D CD CD (D (D CD N (D m N (n (D (D (A = O N Z 2 2 2 Z Z Z 2: SD N N n 3 CD D 7 3 CD 0 0 n O� N m !n N 7 (D CD CD (D (D (OD A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A U O U O U O 0 O CA U 0 0 U U 0 0 U 0 U U 0 0 U 0 U 0 U O U O U O U U O O U O U O U O U O U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 Z O_ O O O_ Oo Z Z O O O O O Z O 0 0 0 O O_ O O O_ O O Z D n D D D _Z D D _Z D U W W A U (T O A W O U CT W O U (A - W U (P 0 J 0 (A ID U O A J --� J O) A W O fA J (A W (A Oo (P (b W J J A Oo A A J N O A l (n W CO A J J (n O) Cn m N N (A (A CA (A w CA N O O CD W U A co O N U U co A D) W O co N A CA A J A (P (A N (A N J O U W A W N (A U -+ O !n A 0 A 0 P o 9 T 0 W 0 J 0 (' 0 (T 0 (A 0 U O 0 O (D O O 0 J 0 J 0 m 0 0 (D OD 0 (P 0 CO 0 (D 4. Z W U W Z Z W W U Z Z A A W Ot U n Z Z Z Z Z W Z Z rl)0D U Z n n n yT- C, U 0) (7) yy -40) J Ln J (b wA W (T W DDo0 m M m ONO W U DDD'D D C. (D N (b A N CT J J p W N O J N W W N O U () O O O CU (D U O O W l A O). C N ° O W 0 0 (b J o :J cn O o 0 0 (.n (D( -. I I I N - A O fa (A fA fA fA (A fA (A <-A fA ffl fA ffl EA fA CO (A iA iA fA CO fA (A fA fA fA fA EA fN in fA fA fA fA (A fA (A N O N W O W W U U N W A A J A N N U (D (D N O (A (D (O O (O (A N U to O Cn m N U O N W LZ w O 03 N A O O W N O U J W N W O O O O U O (D J (n O 0 D 0 U> 0 Oo A W O) O (n 0) (D (fl D) U W N A N 0) U CA CA A co O O N O U N J -• O U N O (D A 0 0 O O O O O O Cn 1 O A W (D (D O O U W O N Cl) O OD (A O .P CD U w 0 0' O U 0 0 0 0 0 (b -� W O U O W -� (A O) O J CTt O n O 3 3 (D 7 N m D 7 n a� D O d m - a (D D W c M l< Z M Z O) v0° c, -� A 0("'3 G7 c 1611 821 Report for: May 6, 2010 Meeting Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Project Status (VA -34)- PENDING COMMITTEE MOTION — Survey for Phase II & III 05 -06 -10 RWA provided quote for Phase II & III; Quote: PHASE II BASE CONTRACT: $55,100.00 PHASE II REIMBURSIBLES: $1,000.00 TOTAL PHASE II SURVEY $56,100.00 PHASE III BASE CONTRACT: $147,600.00 PHASE III REIMBURSIBLES: $1,000.00 TOTAL PHASE II SURVEY $148,600.00 TOTAL PHASE II & III Survey: $204,700.00 (VA -33)- ACTIVE — Conversion of 2 Commercial properties to underground (individual meter connection) 05 -06 -10 Bentley Electric provided quote for both commercial properties; Quote: LIGHTHOUSE INN: $14,710.00 KINGS CROWN CONDO: $9,900.00 $24,610.00 (VA -32)- ACTIVE — Conversion of 31 residential properties to underground (individual meter connection) 04 -09 -10 ITran Partners — Project Start Date (NTP); Total Project Base: $39,312.00 05 -06 -10 ITran request for Change in the amount of $9,862.00 (VA -30)- ACTIVE — Comcast "Phase One" Coordination 05 -06 -10 Comcast Quote provided for total project: $331,351.25 (VA -27)- ACTIVE — Phase One "Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement' (UFCA) 11 -10 -09 COMPLETED for Channel Drive (only); UFCA approved by BCC for `Channel Drive' 05 -06 -10 Overall Phase One UFCA is pending resolution of `easements' required for Phase One Project; As soon as easements are obtained FPL will proceed with Final Engineering Cost Estimate and production of Final Design Plans for project. (VA -26)- ACTIVE — Malcolm Pirnie; Review preliminary design provided by FPL 05 -06 -10 Ongoing review of easements and negotiation with property owners in progress. (VA -19) — ACTIVE- ONGOING — On Call Services — Malcolm Pirnie Engineering On -going services for meeting attendance and preliminary investigation regarding underground power line installation. 05 -06 -10 Ongoing On -Call Engineering Services by Malcolm Pirnie Engineering (VA -18) — ACTIVE- ONGOING- — Maintenance Contract — Award to Commercial Land; Annual Maintenance `base contract' per Quote 05 -06 -10 Ongoing Maintenance Services by Commercial Land Maintenance R 16118? Ll Brief summary of "Underground Utilities Conversion" project activity Since December 11, 2007 Initial BCC Approval of Agreement 12 -11 -07 BCC Approval of ROW Agreement with FPL date Dec. 11, 2007 03 -26 -08 TEAM TELECONFERNCE (FPL, COMCAST, COUNTY, MSTU (C.ARTHUR), VBPOA (JACKIE BAMMEL, RWA, MALCOLM PIRNIE) 03 -10 -08 PUBLIC MEETING AT ST. JOHNS 05 -12 -08 Review of RWA Survey w/ Malcolm Pirnie and C. Arthur 06 -05 -09 Confirmation of 4 residential units affected by "Channel Drive Pilot Project" with FPL (Ryan Drum); Field Meeting to review project; Affected Properties are: NANCE, HAROLD 283 CHANNEL BASTANI, KEN K 261 CHANNEL KOHLER, RUTH H 227 CHANNEL REYNOLDS TR, HENRY E 213 CHANNEL 06 -23 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE: Hart's Electrical begins work per PO 4500107832 09 -11 -08 Review of 1st RWA Survey Submittal Sept 11, 2008 09 -12 -08 Confirmation of FPL Red -Line Comments for survey Sep. 12, 2008 09 -17 -08 TEAM TELECONFERENCE (FPL, MALCOLM PIRNIE) 09 -22 -08 FPL "Pot Hole" digs recommended locations identified Sept 22, 2008 11 -21 -08 TEAM MEETING (C. ARTHUR, J. BAMMEL, MALCOLM PIRNIE) 02 -02 -09 FPL Approval of Survey Feb. 4, 2009 02 -04 -09 Staff request $13,027.00 Engineering Deposit Invoice Feb. 4, 2009 03 -09-09 PUBLIC MEETING AT ST. JOHNS 04 -02 -09 MSTU Committee makes motion to proceed with "Channel Drive Project" 04 -10 -09 Verification of easements for 'private property' April 10, 2009 04 -28 -09 BCC Approval of Modified Ordinance adding installation of powerline within 'easement' to private properties. This is to allow installation of power from ROW Line to private property connection. F 1611 B2`1 06 -01 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE: Ryan Drumm (FPL) request .pdf of ROW Agreement for review; forwarded via email 06 -25 -09 FPL Draft Design submittal Phase One Plans 06 -26 -09 Staff request (1) Cadd file of Phase One Submittal; (2) Review indicates drawings are not sufficient for bidding purposes; (3) Full size prints 'to scale' requested' 06 -26 -09 TELECONFERNCE ; CALL IN FROM FPL (John Lehr, FPL; Troy Todd, FPL; Ryan Drumm, FPL; Darryl Richard, Collier County) Troy Todd (FPL) clarifies that "tariff charges" apply to Channel Drive Project (ref: Tariff No. 6 per PSC approved Tariff); $566.59 for the 4 properties on Channel Drive 07 -27 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE: Hart's Electrical completed electrical from ROW to Home /Resident for the following Channel Drive Address': 213,283,263 and 227 08 -07 -09 RYAN DRUMM SUBMITTAL — Channel Drive UFCA; and'Draft' plans; Ryan confirms no existing underground FPL Facilities on Channel Drive 09 -16 -09 RYAN DRUMM 2nd SUBMITTAL — Channel Drive UFCA (dated 8- 18 -09); and 'Final' Channel Drive plans (marked 'check set') 09 -17 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE RESIDENT COORDINATION: Kent Smith called on behalf of Mr. Nance to report that he has received the mailing /letter regarding Channel Drive project and that Mr. Nance chooses to 'not participate' at this time due to financial concerns. He mentioned his wife was in the hospital and that he did not have the money to pay the $650.00 for his "private conversion" to underground. 09 -22 -09 TELECONFERENCE (FPL, COUNTY LEGAL, STAFF, MALCOLM PIRNIE, C. ARTHUR) Recommendations: FPL to submit 'agreement' in word format (if possible); staff to proceed with obtaining payment for 'private' underground conversion from property owners Nance and Bastani on Channel Drive. FPL confirms that survey has been accepted and 'Final Plans' are pending for Phase One Project. 09 -21 -09 Ryan Drumm provides FPL Cost Breakdown for Channel Drive; Staff intends to process payment for an "FPL Invoice" upon BCC approval of UFCA (Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement) for Channel Drive; UFCA is pending completion of 'legal review' TOTAL CHANNEL DRIVE COST: $23,242.00 09 -23 -09 Message from Mr. Kent Smith (Legal Representative for Mr. Nance (Property Owner at 283 Channel Drive); Mr. Smith stated that the 'owner' has 'no desire' to underground his private connection, and furthermore has 'no intention of spending any money on his home' (at 283 Channel Drive) related to the power line underground conversion. 09 -24 -09 COMCAST COORDINATION; Channel Drive Plans forwarded to Comcast for quote of underground conversion for Comcast overhead utilities 'J 161112 1tqA 10 -01 -09 Phase One "Legal Description" forwarded to FPL for confirmation of FPL formal acceptance of 'Legal Description' per'Right of Way Agreement Section 2. Sub - section (d)' 10 -05 -09 FPL ACCEPTANCE OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION; John Lehr via email confirms FPL's official acceptance of the legal description for the Phase One Project; Staff request confirmation of "EXISTING FPL FACILITIES" per 'Right of Way Agreement Section 2. Sub - section (e)) documentation of all existing FPL underground facilities within the ROW that will not be included under ROW agreement (for Exhibit C) 10 -06 -09 COMCAST COORINDINATION: Mark Cook informs County Staff that Comcast has re- assigned project review to himself and Andy Vaspasiano; Mark indicates he and Andy are working on "Channel Drive" Cost estimate. * *COMCAST CONFIRMS 100% of conversion of Comcast Utilities is to be by the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU as the project sponsor. Comcast indicates that there will be no 'reductions' in cost due to 'depreciation' of equipment /existing installation. Services are identified as 'new' and 'not in need of upgrade'. Installation of underground conduit for Comcast is through Comcast contractor managed 'entirely by Comcast'. 10 -09 -09 Malcolm Pirnie submits letter for review of Project Drawing submittals and recommendation related to which party should install the underground conduit for Phase One Project 10 -12 -09 County Legal provides legal opinion from Nabors Giblin & Nickerson, 1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 200, Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (letter dated 10 -8 -09 Gregory T. Stewart 10 -12 -09 RWA Proposal submitted for survey of Phase II, III, and IV 10 -13 -09 TELECONFERENCE (C. ARTHUR, STAFF, MALCOLM PIRNIE) 10 -14 -09 FPL SUBMITTAL; PLANS FOR PHASE ONE PROJECT (Marked 'Preliminary') 10 -14 -09 John Lehr notifies staff (via phone call evening of 10- 14 -09) that the 'one page' agreement submitted on 8 -7 -09 has to be revised to a new 4 page agreement (delivery pending from FPL) 10 -22 -09 John Hart Electrical received check for $650.00 for Bastani on Channel Drive 'Private Can Conversion to underground. 10 -28 -09 Bastani Channel Drive private conversion project completed by Hart's Electrical 10 -28 -09 Revised UFCA Agreement received from FPL for BCC approval on Nov. 10, 2009 11 -03 -09 Confirmation of Comcast cost for Channel Drive Project is $4,000.00 per FPL plans. 11 -03 -09 Scott Teach and Michelle Arnold teleconference with Nabors Giblin & Nickerson results of teleconference to be presented at 11 -05 -09 MSTU meeting. 0�? 16 11 'B21 1 11 -05 -09 Discussion Nabors Giblin & Nickerson legal consult related to 'underground conversion' and potential 'ordinance'; Committee makes motion to direct staff to pursue Ordinance for the MSTU to pay for homeowner's conversion and Ordinance to 'require' participation and mechanism to address non - participation. 11 -10-09 BCC Approval of UFCA Agreement with FPL for Channel Drive 'pilot project' 11 -10 -09 Field Meeting to review Proposed "Easements" for Phase One Project; Ryan Drum FPL was in attendance with Chris Tilman, Darryl Richard, Jeff Gower, and Charlie Arthur. Inspection indicated that all of the easements proposed were not necessary, and that 'alternative' site planning would locate the electrical boxes within existing ROW. Follow - up meeting with John Lehr scheduled for December 8, 2009 (1 pm) 12 -08 -09 Meeting with FPL (John Lehr, Kate Donofrio, Ryan Drum) and Malcolm Pirnie (Chris Tilman, Jeff Gower) and County Staff (Darryl Richard); Review of easements proposed; approximately 50% of easements were determined to not be necessary; However, the other 50% of easements require (1) detailed re- survey, (2) placement of stakes in field identifying ROW and property lines, and (3) re- identification of utilities in the field (call into Florida One Call system) Staff will coordinate with Malcolm Pirnie and RWA for necessary project activity; additional proposal from RWA is necessary for scope of work identified. Proposal from Malcolm Pirnie for'easement acquisition' is also recommended at this time in anticipation of possible requirement for easements. 12 -15-09 BCC Approval of Ordinance Modification to add 'private' connections to MSTU Ordinance thus allowing MSTU to complete 100% of private meter connections as required to obtain 25% GAF waiver from FPL. 01 -04 -10 Draft Letter to 37 residents requiring underground conversion for meter connection under review 01 -04 -10 Channel Drive Project Under Construction 01 -19 -10 Letter sent to 35 residents in Phase One Project that have 'overhead' meter connections; staff is monitoring confirmation of receipt of this mailing by Certified Mail 02 -09 -10 Channel Drive Project 90% completed; missing 2 transformer boxes pending from FPL; Comcast is 100% installed on Channel Drive. 02 -09 -10 RWA Delivers 13 exhibits for locations for transformers and switch cabinets; These exhibits will be used in review of proposed easements by FPL in Preliminary Design 02 -09 -10 Malcolm Pirnie provides Final Bid Documents for Electrical Conversion of 35 properties in Phase One Project which have existing overhead meter connections. Staff preparing bid for advertisement and release to 'all bidders' not restricted to annual contractors. 0/_0 1611 821 03 -04 -10 MSTU Committee awards bid to ITran Partners, Inc. for underground conversion of 31 private residential units. It was determined that only 2 additional properties require underground conversion. Since the 2 additional properties are 'Commercial Property' and will require extensive review and investigation prior to conversion — these will be handled through Collier County Annual Electrical Contractor. 03 -11 -10 Meeting with ITran Partners to review 31 properties to be undergrounded. Some properties were noted as 'possible change order items'; namely saw cutting concrete driveway and re- installation of concrete slab over newly installed conduit. Malcolm Pirnie is assisting staff in review of each property and related 'issues' that may require further review. 03 -24 -10 EASEMENT ACQUISITION MEETING: 9895 Gulf Shore Dr.; Laplaya LLC; Jeremy Arnold, PE; Barron Collier Enterprises Summary: Mr. Anrold was very agreeable to granting easement 03 -26 -10 EASEMENT ACQUISITION MEETING: 10352 Gulf Shore Dr.; Mr. Epright; Summary: Mr. Epright is not agreeable to all 4 boxes being located on his property. He would like for the County to pursue alternative of placement of "2 boxes North of his property line — on the Condo Property" (10420 GULF SHORE DR; "Vanderbilt Bay Condominiums); Staff will coordinate with Engineer Consultant in bringing an alternative solution to the property owner; after preliminary review /approval by FPL as a viable alternative 03 -26 -10 Meeting with ITran Partners to review further 'more in depth' some of the technical issues related to each property conversion. Further coordination with FPL (Troy Todd) to identify certain items which appear to be 'non- standard' installations and modifications to FPL's meter connections is required. 03 -30 -10 All Tariff charges for the 31 properties have been approved for payment to FPL. Note there is a $566.59 Tariff charge for each of the 31 properties. Material supply for conduit will be by FPL for the residential units. With wire being 'pulled' by FPL. FPL will notify County once material supply has been received and is in stock. 03 -30 -10 EASEMENT ACQUISITION MEETING: 9635 Gulf Shore Dr.; Casa Grande Summary: Pam Pettit (Manager) and the Board President of Casa Grande. Appeared to be in agreement with granting easement. Was in favor of project. 03 -31 -10 COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CONVERSION: Meeting with Bentley Electric to review project details for conversion of 2 Commercial Properties (1) 9140 GULF SHORE DR (Hotel /INN) (2) 10540 Gulf Shore Dr (mulit -unit condo) Bentley Electric to provide quote under annual contract 09 -5325 On Call Electrical Services Contract 03 -31 -10 Malcolm Pirnie Provides layout alternatives (Options 1, 2, and 3) for Mr. Epright's property. All 3 alternatives require an easement of some sort. FPL appears to be 1611 g21 interested in Option #1 which places 2 boxes to the north parcel and 2 boxes on /near Mr. Epright's property. (requires easement from both property owners) 04 -01 -10 Meeting with Lighthouse Hotel Owner Kevin Dugan regarding easement. Kevin is in favor of project and is willing to provide easement 04 -06 -10 ITran Partners begin underground conversion of 31 Commercial Properties. 04 -21 -10 Meeting with Charles Chaffee; Mr. Chaffee is in favor of project and will provide easement 04 -21 -10 Meeting with Mr. Epright; Mr. Epright is not in favor of project and is willing to offer very limited easement (5 ft. along Northern Edge of property) 04 -30 -10 Final Draft for Agreements for (3) Three Easements submitted to Kevin Hendricks, Director, Collier County Property Acquisitions 04 -30 -10 Easement Exhibits received from Malcolm Pirnie 05 -03 -10 Meeting with Collier County Utilities (Joe Thomas, P.E.) regarding the easement proposal for Vanderbilt Towers (North of Epright Property); Proposed alternative involves relocation and /or disconnection of existing water force main. Joe Thomas, Collier County Utilities indicates his staff will have to review what is proposed and then get back to Malcolm Pirnie /Staff. Note: a 7.5 foot off -set requirement is noted as being `required for our project'; staff /consultant had previously been utilizing 5 ft. off -set per FPL requirements for existing utilities. Malcolm Pirnie is to provide an exhibit for Joe Thomas illustrating the locations for utility boxes and off -sets as relates to utilities (water main lines in particular) ►I, DAVAt INC. CQNSI. L T11VCi -AL W 7 L 'Planning -Ylaualizadon Civil Engineering •Surveying & Mapping April 30, 2010 Darryl Richard Collier County Government Transportation Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 1611 B21 Subject: Professional Service Proposal for Vanderbilt Beach MSTU — Phases II and III (RWA, Inc. File No. 080010.00.PO) Dear Darryl, RWA, Inc. is pleased to submit the following proposal for land surveying and subsurface utility services associated with the redesign of the existing FPL aerial lines. Outlined below is our understanding of the project profile and the assumptions we have used to develop our scope and associated fees in response to your request for proposal. This proposal has been prepared with the knowledge and experience gained through the successful completion of the Phase I project. I believe that if the subsequent phases are executed together, and the work effort can be timed so that the phases are completed consecutively, the MSTU will benefit with an economy of scale. This will help us compress the time schedules for completion, and avoid subsequent mobilization time and expense. We will be able to deliver the subsequent Phase Surveys individually, or should the MSTU want desire, one large package, delineated with the Phase II and III boundaries. PROJECT PROFILE • Collier County (Client) intends to assist the MSTU with the redesign of the existing FPL aerial lines located within the MSTU boundary in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East in Collier County, Florida. • The Client has issued a request for proposal including a preliminary scope of services. • RWA shall provide a detailed topographic and control survey and existing underground utility locations within Phases II and III, as depicted on the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU power line- underground installation exhibit, received on January 4, 2008. The surveying limits are 10' outside of the existing right -of -way. • Phase II shall include the following streets: Bluebill Avenue from Gulf Shore Drive to Vanderbilt Drive, Vanderbilt Beach Road from Gulf Shore Drive to Vanderbilt Drive, S. Bay Drive, Gulf Shore Court, and Center Street. (7200 linear feet) • Phase III shall include Vanderbilt Drive from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Bluebill Avenue, Palm Court, Oak Avenue, Pine Avenue, Bay Side, Lagoon Avenue, Tradewinds, Willet Avenue, Seagull Avenue, German Avenue, Seebee Avenue, Conners Avenue, Egret Avenue, Heron Avenue, and Flamingo Avenue. (22,850 linear feet) 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200, Naples FL 34109 • (239) 597 -0575, fax: (239) 597 -0578 www.00nsult- rwa.com �3 1611`21 • The Client desires to retain the services of RWA, Inc. (Consultant) and proceed with the Project as described within this proposal. • The project will be permitted, designed and developed in three subsequent phases. Phase I of the project (approximately 10,200 linear feet) included an additional services (change order) to utilize vacuum excavation methods to obtain vertical information on twenty seven (27) specific locations at the request of FPL, or one hole per 400 linear feet. This proposal for services factors in the use of vacuum excavation at a rate of one hole, per 400 linear feet for each of the subsequent phases. The use of vacuum excavation is to clarify potential utility conflicts. This shall be billed on a per hole basis at the rate of x525 per hole. The line item listed in the Professional Fee section is only an estimate based on the number calculated at one hole per 400 linear feet. PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS • The client will make available all pertinent information associated with the project including, but not limited to, legal descriptions, existing surveys, permits, title policies and other available documents. • The vertical datum will be collected in NAVD 1988 and converted to NGVD 1929. • The surveying services will be completed and delivered within 120 business days total, or 90 days per phase if separated, after receiving an executed contract along with a Notice to Proceed and the marking of the existing utilities by Earth View, LLC. • Any additional surveying services, additional underground soft digs or the use of ground penetrating radar, beyond the Scope of this Proposal, shall be billed on a time, material and expense basis as per the approved rate codes stated within Annual Contract # 07 -4112. • The surveying services outlined in the proposal is based upon the FPL scope of services and Phasing Exhibit received on January 10, 2008, which was the basis for Phase I of the project. • This proposal includes performing all services described within on a one -time basis. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.0 Control Survey 1.1. Reproduce the recorded right -of -way and baseline information. Right -of -way shall include the intersecting road within the project limits. The right -of -way information shall be labeled, including, date, bearings and distances. In addition the following information shall be noted: a. Horizontal datum — tied into the Florida State Plan Coordinate System, NAD 1983/1999 Adjustment. RWA will provide project control network sheets for the survey baseline control points instead of setting reference points. b. Vertical datum (benchmarks) — 1988 (NAVD 88), set eight per project area. c. Existing layout shall be tied to the existing right -of -way. d. Locate existing visible property markers (e.g. — iron pipe, concrete monuments, etc.) Page 2 of 7 SA20081080010.00.PO Vanderbilt Beach MSTU \02120 1 0- 04- 2 0- PSA- D.Richard -Ph II -11I (Revl).doc 161 VIN"B2 I e. Tie buildings located within 20' of the proposed limits of the project to the existing right -of -way. 1.2. Property ownership shall be determined from Collier County records and incorporated into the plan drawings and files. Property lines do not need to be surveyed, but shall be verified utilizing any visible property markers, wherever possible. The MSTU will provide or make available to the surveyor the identifying property owner information and easement report upon request. 2.0 Topographic Survey 2.1. Locate and collect spot elevations of the above - ground visible improvements located within the project limits. 2.2. Locate individual trees 4" in diameter and up. 2.3. Locate the outline of hedgerows and planted areas. 2.4. Collect sanitary and storm structure data; rim elevations, inverts, pipe sizes directions and condition. 3.0 Underground Utility Location 3.1. Locate all known and unknown utilities in Phase II and III of this project, using ground penetrating radar and/or radio detection. (To be done by Earthview.) 3.2. Paint and flag utilities in accordance with Florida D.O.T. Requirements. (To be done by Earthview.) 3.3. This proposal does include vacuum excavation, assumed to be at a rate of one hole, per 400 linear feet, as was the case during the Phase I project. (To be done by Earthview.) The number of holes for Phase II is estimated to be 17, and the number for Phase III is estimated to be 57. The line item below in the FEES section, will be billed on per hole basis, and only the actual number of holes will be billed to the client. 3.4. RWA, Inc. will field locate underground utilities, as marked in the field by Earth View LLC. The utility locations will include the horizontal locations of all marked lines. Field locations will be delivered in Auto Cadd format. 4.0 Sketch and Description 4.1. Prepare a sketch and legal description of the existing right -of -way to be occupied by the FPL underground facility as required in the County right -of -way agreement for underground conversion dated December 11, 2007. 5.0 Reimbursable Expenses 5.1. Expenses for blueprints, reproduction services, overnight or express delivery services, and vehicle mileage, shall be reimbursable to RWA, Inc. Page 3 of 7 S:\2008 \080010.00.PO Vanderbilt Beach MSTU\02 \2010- 04- 20- PSA- D_Richard -Ph II -Ill (Revl).doc /J 16124a21 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FEES The professional service fee estimates for the associated scope of services are listed below. Scope of Services (Phase II) Fee Tvve 1.0 Control Survey 2.0 Topographic Survey 3.0 Underground Utility Location (17 Soft digs @ $525 per) 4.0 Sketch and Descriptions 5.0 Reimbursable Expenses Scope of Services (Phase III) 1.0 Control Survey 2.0 Topographic Survey 3.0 Underground Utility Location (57 Soft Digs @ $525 per) 4.0 Sketch and Descriptions 5.0 Reimbursable Expenses $ 11,000 Fixed $ 13,400 Fixed $ 19,300 Fixed $ 8,900 TME 2,500 Fixed Total $ 55,100 Fixed $ 1,000 T/M/E Fee Tvve $ 40,000 Fixed $ 42,000 Fixed $ 30,000 Fixed $ 29,900 TME 5,700 Fixed Total $147,600 $ 1,000 T/M/E Note: T/M/E denotes Time, Material and Expense billing category. Stated Fee is an estimate only, client will only be billed for actual hourly costs related to individual surveying services Page 4 of 7 SA2008 \080010.00.P0 Vanderbilt Beach MSTU \02\2010- 04- 20- PSA- D.Richard -Ph H -III (Revl).doc 4 1611 B 2 1 Deliverables • RWA will submit an Autocad Version 9 or higher electronic file in DWG format as required by FPL. • The final control survey shall include a detailed and accurate compilation of control points established by a closed traverse loop through the primary control points or with a Global Positioning System -based network, to assure an error -free or closed control network. Relative error or loop closure will conform to requirements of subsection 61G17-6.003(l) (e), FAC. All control points will be referenced to the Florida State Plan Coordinate System, NAD 1983/1999 Adjustment. • Up to four copies of the final control survey will be provided in hard copy print, signed and sealed by a Florida registered Surveyor and Mapper. Excluded Services The professional services to be provided by the Consultant are limited to those described in the Scope of Services. All other services are specifically excluded. Listed below are excluded services that may be required or desired by the Client: Construction Layout Services Preparation of Sketch and Descriptions Easement Vacations • Special Purpose Surveys • Radar Topography Page 5 of 7 5:\2008 \080010.00.PO Vanderbilt Beach MSTU\02 \2010 -04- 20- PSA- D.Richatd -Ph II- 111 (Revl).doc 1611 g21 ACCEPTANCE AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED Period for Acceptance This Proposal/Agreement is open for acceptance by Client through July 31, 2010. After the acceptance date, the proposal may be withdrawn or subject to modification by RWA, Inc. Acceptance If this Proposal/Agreement satisfactorily sets forth Client's entire understanding of the agreement, please sign one copy of this agreement in the space provided and return it to RWA, Inc. as authorization to proceed with the work. Owner /Client Authorization I hereby certify that the undersigned is the Agent to the Owner of the property that is the subject of this proposal. I hereby certify that the undersigned has the authorizing authority to execute this contract for professional services. I hereby authorize the performance of the services as described herein and agree to pay the charges resulting thereby as identified above in accordance with the attached Standard Business Terms and Conditions and Rate Code and Fee Schedule of RWA, Inc. Accepted this day of La 2010. Please Print Name Title For: Collier County Transportation Thank you for the opportunity to submit this professional service proposal. Please call if you have any questions. We will look forward to hearing back from you soon. Sincerely, /6t A- Michael A. Ward, PLS RWA, Inc. Project Manager Encl.: Collier County Rate Code Billing Address Information Page 6 of 7 S:120081080010.00.PO Vanderbilt Beach MSTU102 12010 -04- 20- PSA- D.Richard -Ph II -III (Revl).doc /J 1611 g21 INDUSTRIAL BENTLEY �'C O . ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS COMMERCIAL Phone: (239) 643 -5339 Fax: (239) 643 -3685 of Naples. Florida. Inc. P.O. BOX 10572 • NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101 April 23, 2010 Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 Attn: Darryl Richard, RLA RE: Gulfshore Drive Service Upgrades Revised Listed below is a price breakdown for two(2) service upgrades on Gulfshore Drive. a) We propose to furnish labor and material to install new service equipment and underground wiring at the Lighthouse Inn for the sum of $10,910.00. Add $1,100.00 to the base bid if we are to add FP &L's new underground riser. Note: this price does not include temporary power, if a temporary generator is needed; please add $ 2,700.00 to the base bid. b) We propose to furnish labor and material to upgrade the service conductors at the Kings Crown Condominiums for the sum of $ 8,800.00. Add $ 1,100.00 to the base bid if we are to add FP &L's new underground riser. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal, should you have any questions regarding this please contact my office at 239 -643 -5339. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal, should you have any questions regarding this please contact my office at 239 - 643 -5339. Sincerely; i Charles Bentley, President Bentley Electric Company If L Lighting. Signalization do Intel igetrt 7innsp0rintioq Sohrllorrs P.O. Box 8929 Naples, Florida 34101 Phone (239) 566 -2664 Fax (239) 566 -2969 PROJECT NUMBER COUNTY: Rr Q 10 Collier IB21 LOCATION: Vanderbilt Beach MSTU BID DATE : March 3, 2010 BID ITEM QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE 7 OTAL 291 Se6reezc 1.00 LS Cut and Replace Asphalt $2,714.00 $2,714.00 10021 GulfShc 1.00 LS Bore Driveway /Decorative Brick Replace $2,886.00 $2,886.00 192 Channel 1.00 LS Concrete Driveway Replace $1,886.00 $1,886.00 257 Seabreez( 1.00 LS Concrete Slab Replace $530.00 $530.00 127 Seabreez( 1.00 LS Landscape Restoration $1,043.00 $1,643.00 103 Bayview 1.00 LS Concrete Slab /Landscaping $803.00 $803.00 Lighting Sub -Total $9,862.00 BID TOTAL $9,862.00 NOTES 1.) Price is for concrete, asphalt and extreme landcscape restoration. 2.) Price is for the addit n expense to install conduit from normal construction means 3.) Price is additional above the contract cost of underground conduit installation. boug McIntyre 05/04/2010 WIN d� t I� 4 i �# S5 WON Ake `��4 \Mlrlil� }MWY no x s r y ^ moi x' _ �4 � t S ,{ v � { 3+ i ' , fff 161 Attention: Designer: WILLIAM BELL Phone: (239)594 -8494 will Olykins- signtek. com b All aluminum construction with routed aluminum Sign faces painted to customer 5pec5. PLEASE read through your proof carefully. This is a rendering of how your signs will appear. PLEASE PRINT & SIGN your name, and fax back this proof. With either approval or changes. i-i PROOF O.K. AS IS Fax (239) 514 -5047 °'" 25608 041310 °° Y Collier County Gov. ADD'L PROOF °�BfDde 10 16 07 sa-,a„°a: Sharon FO 71316 s., °°m.aamaa rat, TENTATIVE INSTALL DATE various $ `�" Naples, FI 34101 °amm•a�a: """°' All aluminum construction with �239� If you sign this proof at this present time, we will do routed aluminum sign faces (239) our best to achieve this tentative install date. painted to customer specs. © 2006 Copyright Lykins - Signtek, Inc. This design is the sole property of Lykins - Signtek If it is used for bidding with other companies - A design fee of $75.00 per hour will be charged. "22 Fiala CEIVED Halas �., B 2 2 RE Henning May 10, 2010 AUG U 4 2010 Coyle —- Coletta Board of County Commissioners MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY Naples, Florida, May 10 2010 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: VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Fay Biles 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. Cores- 1) Date: b Item # l 1611 8224 May 10, 2010 I. Call to Order (Determination of Quorum) and Roll Call Vice Chairman Lam called the meeting to order at 2:03PM. Roll call was taken and a quorum established. II. Approval of Agenda — Meeting of May 10, 2010 Mr. Morgan moved to approve the agenda. Second by Dr. Ritter. Carried unanimously 4 -0. III. Approval of Minutes — Meeting of December 14, 2009 Mr. Lam moved to approve the minutes of the December 14, 2010 meeting. Second by Dr. Ritter. Carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. Items Requiring Action by Authority A. Final Order 2010 -01— Annual Price Index Jamie French, Executive Director of the CCWWA presented the memorandum "Authority Agenda Item, May I i `h 2010 Final Order No. 2010- 01 " dated May 6, 2010. He noted the following: • Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) Order no. PSC- 10 -0082- PAA-WS was issued February 15, 2010 and established a 2010 Price Index of 0.56 percent. • The maximum allowable 2010 Price Index can be no greater than 0.56 percent. • Section 1 -6.i (1), Collier County Ordinance No. 96 -6, as amended, requires the Authority to adopt a price index for investor -owned water and/or wastewater utilities no later than May 15`h of each year equivalent to the Price Index established annually by the FPSC. Dr. Ritter moved to approve Final Order No. 2010 -0 as presented. Second by Mr. Morgan. Carried unanimously 4 -0. B. Annual Election of Officers Chairman Biles nominated Dr. Ritter for Chairman of the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority. Nominations were closed and Dr. Ritter was named Chairman of the Authority. Mr. Lam nominated Mr. Morgan for Vice Chairman of the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority. Nominations were closed and Mr. Morgan was named Vice Chairman of the Authority. Dr. Ritter assumed the Chair. V. Staff Discussion A. FGUA Jamie French, Executive Director CCWWA provided an informational update on the financial status of Florida Governmental Utility Authority (FGUA). He noted the following: 161 IIB2 2 A 4 May 10, 2010 • There is an inter -local agreement between FGUA and Collier County that acknowledges the CCWWA has a right to review and comment on proposed FGUA rate increases. • The CCWWA or its Staff Liaison has no voting power including veto power on their proposed rate increases. • On October of 20009, a 2.5 % increase of rates was implemented however revenue continues to decline due to the recent economic activity. • They are in the process of requesting a rate increase of two 7% percent increases (approximately 14 %) • Many of the revenue problems stem from the high amount of debt assumed by FGUA when they purchased the utility, its small geographic service area, limited number of available users, recent reduction of customers served and conservation practices reducing demand for water. • Another avenue for increased revenue is "forced connections" for residents currently not connected to the system, (a solution generally viewed unacceptable by those affected). • Although the CCWWA has no power to establish a position on proposed rate increase request, Staff continues to work with the FGUA to address their financial status. S esker Barbara Kerby, FGUA noted they continue to research avenues to increased revenue including establishment of base fees for existing or inactive users and construction infrastructure that may provide the sale of recycled water to Golden Gate Country Club. A public hearing will be held regarding the rate increases in June of 2010. She noted approximately 140 accounts have been lost over the past year. The current average monthly bill for services is approximately $117 and is expected to increase to approximately $133. Jamie French noted Staff will continue to monitor the situation, review any rate increases requests and comment as necessary. Jamie French reported that Ave Maria Utility Company has filed a request for the 2009 rate increase which will be heard by the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority at a future meeting. Mr. Lam left the meeting at 2:41pm Jamie French noted the Community Development and Environmental Services Division has been merged with the Transportation Department to form the "Collier County Growth Management Division." VI. Open to Public None VII. Authority Member Discussion . 1611 B22 May 10, 2010 None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 2:55pm COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWA AUTHORITY Chairm , r. Sherwin Ritter V►cE cWAIK^A,J.' 71Excy1b-496 V V ► CE" These Minutes were approved by the Board /Chairman on 8 " 3 — a o f as presented ✓ , or as amended 4 161 t I°Oq =oi^l p j-- cF,NE MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE AUG 10 2010 COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE Board of county commissioners Ll Fiala Halas Naples, Florida, July 16, 2010 Henning Coyle coietta 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 Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary Misc. Car : Dale: C ^pies to: 1611 ' 12.4 Jue 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: 9:17 AM RECONVENED: 9:37 AM II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item IV (B), "Motion for Extension of Time," the following case was added: • Case #CEPM 20090004566 — BCC vs. Edith Granados (b) Under Item V (A), "Public Hearings, "a STIPULATION was reached in the following case: • Agenda #13, Case #CEV 20100003971— BCC vs. Fritzner Valcin (c) Under Item V (B), "Hearings, "the following case was DISMISSED by the Park Ranger: • Agenda #3, Case #PR 042943 — CEEX 20100007147 — BCC vs. Minas L. Masouras (d) Under Item V (B), "Hearings, " the following cases were WITHDRAWN by the County: • Agenda #4, Case #DAS 11912 — CEEX 20100007418 — BCC vs. Penelope Maroules • Agenda #5, Case #CENA 20090016574 — BCC vs. Jeffrey A. Macasevich • Agenda #11, Case #CEROW 20090015230 — BCC vs. Estate of Alan D. Montgomery • Agenda #12, Case #CEV 20100001707 — BCC vs. Hildeberto & Juana Garcia • Agenda #14, Case #CENA 20100002482 — BCC vs. Isabel F. Arreaga • Agenda #16, Case #CESD 20090016653 — BCC vs. John Mills • Agenda #17, Case #CEV 20090017598 — BCC vs. John Mills • Agenda #18, Case #CENA 20100005207 — BCC vs. Ted Zhi M. Luo • Agenda #19, Case #CEV 20100006335 — BCC vs. Ted Zhi M. Luo R 1611 Ju y , 2010 (e) Under Item VI (A), "Motion for Imposition of Fines," the following case was WITHDRAWN by the County: • Agenda #3, Case #CEPM 20090013071— BCC vs. Edward A. & Paula L. Kaulbars 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 — June 4, 2010 The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on June 4, 2010 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Reduction /Abatement of Fines: None B. Motion for Extension of Time: 10. Case #CEPM 20090004566 — BCC vs. Edith Granados The County was represented by Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joseph Mucha. The Respondent was not present. Attorney James L. Goetz represented Indy Mac Mortgage Services, a division of One West Bank, FSB, as an interested party. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and 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 St. SW, Naples Attorney Goetz stated a mortgage foreclosure proceeding was filed on September 8, 2008 and a Motion for Summary Judgment was filed in May 2009, but the Docket is over - crowded. He stated Indy Mac does not own the property although Indy Mac filed a Lien was filed against the property. He noted the Operational Costs were paid, the Bank has spent approximately $44,000 to repair the property, and some of the violations have been satisfied. Investigator Mucha stated the County would not object to a sixty -day (60) Extension to obtain compliance. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Motion for Extension of Time and requested Code Enforcement schedule the Hearing. 161 jjU'*'1yC'1l0 A V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations: 13. Case #CEV 20100003971— BCC vs. Fritzner Valcin The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul who was present. The Respondent was also present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 2.01.00(A) Toyota Camry inoperable Folio No: 36313160009 Violation address: 2288 51St Terrace SW, Naples, FL 34106 The Respondent resides at 2288 51St Terrace SW, Naples, Florida 34106. A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent on July 16, 2010. Investigator Paul stated the Respondent agreed to the terms of the Stipulation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to repair the vehicle making it operable, or store the vehicle in a completely enclosed structure, or remove it from the premises, on or before the close of business on July 20, 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 $112.29 on or before August 16, 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: $112.29 B. Hearings: 1. Case #SO 135310 — CEEX 20100008423 — BCC vs. Charles W. Cook The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Sheriff's Office Deputy Swales was also present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 130 -67 Handicapped space Violation address: 6650 Collier Blvd, Wal -Mart 1611'%IC620104 The Respondent resides at 19 Jade Drive, Naples, Florida 34114. The Respondent stated he applied for a Handicapped Parking Permit but did not have the money to pay his physician who refused to sign the permit application until an outstanding balance was paid. The Deputy requested to dismiss the case since the Respondent has since obtained a Handicapped Parking Permit. The Special Magistrate DISMISSED the case as requested by the Collier County Sheriffs Deputy. 2. Case #PR 042908 — CEEX 20100008328 — BCC vs. James B. Gunderson The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Park Ranger Kurt Araquistain was also present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 130 -67 Parked in Handicapped parking space, no Handicapped tag Violation address: Bayview Park The Respondent resides at 3975 Rum Road, Naples, Florida 34102. The Respondent stated he launched his sail boat at approximately 7:30 AM and parked the boat trailer in a parking spot. Because there were no available parking spots when he was about to remove his boat, he attempted to "reserve" the same spot by placing several items in it but were removed, and the spot was taken. In order to avoid overhead power lines and also not block traffic, the Respondent parked the trailer in the Handicapped spot while he lowered the boat's mast. He stated his intention was to immediately vacate the Handicapped spot when it was safe to move the boat. He noted he never left the vicinity of the parking spot while working on his boat and was attempting to back out of the parking spot when the Citation was issued. The Park Ranger introduced four photographs which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. He stated the vehicle was unattended when he observed the vehicle in the Handicapped parking spot. The Respondent pointed out one of the photos showed the driver's door was open and the engine was running, and he was walking around the trailer to inspect the boat before leaving. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation. 1611 Ju1C6 010' 6. Case #CEV 20100006190 — BCC vs. Ernest J. Valdastri The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Carol Sykora who was present. The Respondent was present and represented by Attorney Jerald Pitkin. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 2.01.00(A) Recurring Violation: Inoperable and unlicensed vehicles parked/stored on residential property. Folio No: 49532360004 Violation address: 30 Creek Circle, Naples The Respondent resides at 30 Creek Circle, Naples, Florida 34114. Investigator Sykora stated a Stipulation was reached in the case and the violation had been abated. A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent on July 16, 2010. 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 NOT 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 $11220 on or before August 16, 2010. Total Amount Due: $11220 7. Case #CENA 20100006202 — BCC vs. Ernest J. Valdastri The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Carol Sykora who was present. The Respondent was present and represented by Attorney Jerald Pitkin. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54 -179 and Section 54 -181. Recurring Violation: Litter consisting of, but not limited to, plastic bottles, cans, tools, tires, automotive parts. Folio No: 49532360004 Violation address: 30 Creek Circle, Naples The Respondent resides at 30 Creek Circle, Naples, Florida 34114. Investigator Sykora introduced the following photographs which were maked as indicated and admitted into evidence: • County Composite Exhibit "A" -three photographs, dated April 30, 2010 • County Exhibit `B" —one photograph, dated May 4, 2010 16 t 1�oAM She stated the current violations were abated but if the violations occur again, they will be considered as a "repeat violation." Attorney Pitkin referenced definition of "litter" in Section 54 -178 of the Ordinance and stated the items described in the Notice of Violation (motor vehicle parts and tires) were not "... discarded, abandoned, or otherwise disposed of improperly ... " by the Respondent. The items were not maintained or allowed to remain on the property for an extended period of time. He stated the violations which were present on April 30th were abated by May 4th as shown in County's Exhibit `B." Additionally, the May 4th photograph shows a "new "violation which the Attorney stated was evidence of the cleaning process which was taking place. He urged the Special Magistrate to apply a common sense approach to the application of the Ordinance since anyone who was in the process of cleaning out an area or re- organizing an inventory would have a pile of "stuff' to be removed as part of the process. The conditions were not recurring. The Respondent stated the photographs taken on April 30th did show his items and had previously been stored in a warehouse. He is in the process of selling items on Craig's List, and in order to photograph them for sale, he is constantly re- arranging the back room by taking items out and placing them back inside. Nothing remained outside for more than one day. The Investigator's pictures showed the back patio and not the front of the house. He further stated the neighbors have entered his property, pushed vehicles out from his car port to the Right -of -Way, taken pictures of supposed violations (a "photo shoot ") and then call Code Enforcement. Investigator Sykora stated the Respondent has complied but have been a number of complaints about the situation at his property. The Respondent stated he was told by Code Enforcement as long as the items were removed by the end of the day, it would not be a problem. He also stated his items have value and is trying to sell them in order to paybills and survive. He had initially planned to start his own business when he lost his job. Attorney Pitkin stated the Respondent has between 20 to 50 ads on Craig's List and is diligently trying to sell the items stored at his home. Supervisor Patti Petrulli stated there have been 37 cases at the Respondent's address since 2004. She prepared a packet of information on the violations and a diagram to outline where to place his vehicles and items to avoid any violations. The Special Magistrate stated the situation appears to be an on -going problem and Code Enforcement is trying to help the Respondent remain in compliance. Attorney Pitkin reiterated the items were not abandoned, discarded, or disposed of improperly and noted there is a continuing rift between the Respondent and his 1611 A0 12eA neighbors. He stated the language in the Ordinance accommodates ordinary, human events, such as working through transitions in people's lives following changes. He further stated the County is cognizant of the personality issues within the neighborhood and have been working with him. The Respondent is making progress selling his personal inventory of merchandise. The Special Magistrate suggested Attorney Pitkin and the Respondent confer with Code Enforcement. RECESS: 11:12 AM RECONVENED: 11:28 AM Attorney Pitkin stated the Respondent has received varying messages from the County and several neighbors and is confused. He maintains the Respondent may have caused a temporary situation of an unsightly nature, but is not guilty of the violation. The Special Magistrate ruled that, based on the circumstance of this particular instance, the Respondent was not in violation and warned the situation cannot become on going. 8. Case #CEV 20100006250 — BCC vs. Ernest J. Valdastri The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Carol Sykora who was present. The Respondent was present and represented by Attorney Jerald Pitkin. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 2.01.00(B) Recurring Violation: recreational vehicles not correctly parked or stored on residential property and in the County's Right -of -Way. Folio No: 49532360004 Violation address: 30 Creek Circle, Naples The Respondent resides at 30 Creek Circle, Naples, Florida 34114. Investigator Sykora introduced the following photographs which were marked as indicated and admitted into evidence: • County Composite Exhibit "A" -two photographs, dated April 30, 2010 • County Exhibit `B" — one photograph, dated May 4, 2010 She stated the violation had been abated. The Respondent stated he did not own the boat and it was removed from his property. Attorney Pitkin asked Investigator Sykora where the Respondent should store the recreational vehicle on his property. 1b i1 b I J A4 The Investigator stated the Respondent's rear yard is different from most rear yards because it is a corner lot, i.e., the portion of the lot opposite the street with the least amount of frontage. She noted the diagram presented was not an exact diagram of the Respondent's lot, but was offered as an example. The Respondent presented two photographs, dated July 15, 2010 which were marked as Respondent's Composite Exhibit #1 and admitted into evidence. Attorney Pitkin cross - examined Investigator Sykora referencing the photographs and she concurred the recreational vehicle was properly parked. Attorney Pitkin noted Section 2.01.00(B) of the Ordinance contains an exception for recreational vehicles, i.e., "... provided, however, that such equipment may be parked anywhere on the residential premises, other than on the County Right -of -Way or Right -of -Way easement, for a period not to exceed six hours within a time period of seven days for loading and unloading, andlor cleaning, prior to or after a trip. " He further stated in order for the Respondent to mow the rear lot, it may be necessary to move the recreational vehicle from time to time. The Respondent stated he did not own the boat in the photograph. It was dropped off at his property on April 30th by the owner who wanted him to "check it out." The Respondent stated he was not home when the boat was dropped off. When he returned, he called the owner and asked him to remove the boat. The RV was not in its usual position on April 30th because the Respondent stated he was mowing the lawn which took approximately four or five hours. On May 4th, the Respondent stated the RV parked on the side of the road because he was taking his jet ski to the boat ramp and the trailer was too long for the driveway. He left the vehicle only to obtain his flares and life jackets from inside the house. The Special Magistrate ruled the Respondent was in violation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to relocate the recreational vehicle to an enclosed structure, carport or rear yard, or to remove it from the premises. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case in the amount of $11220 on or before August 16, 2010. Total Amount Due: $112.20 The Special Magistrate stated continually moving a vehicle from point to point on a property to avoid a technical violation of the Ordinance is not in the spirit of the Ordinance. She cautioned him to avoid the appearance of a violation in the future. VI. NEW BUSINESS 9 16 11 Jucli-A A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 4. Case #CESD 20090010025 — BCC vs. James R. Bird The County was represented by Code Enforcement Supervisor Kitchell Snow on behalf of Investigator Weldon Walker. The Respondent was present. Katherine Bird, the Respondent's daughter, appeared as a witness. 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) (104.1.3.5)(106.1.2). Shed in rear of property missing window/broken window. Two windows and a door are boarded from the inside out. Main house has been re- roofed with metal roof over roll. Permit was issued 12/02/98. Not co -ed. Folio No: 32680280001 Violation address: 1420 Santa Rosa Ave, Immokalee The Respondent resides at 1420 Santa Rosa Avenue, Immokalee, Florida 34142. Investigator Snow stated the violation was abated as of July 8, 2010. Fines have accrued at the rate of $150.00 per day for the period from June 5, 2010 through July 8, 2010 (34 days) for a total fine amount of $5,100.00. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.56 have been paid. The total amount due to date is $5,100.00. Ms. Bird stated the shed was on the property when it was purchased approximately 30 years ago. It took a long time to empty the accumulated items. She and her brother were not available to help their father until June. Additionally, Mr. Bird needed time to save money to pay for the permit and for the dumpster Investigator Snow stated the Respondent was confused about the time deadline and thought he had additional time. He noted the family worked diligently to come into compliance. The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. 8. Case #CEV 20100002334 — BCC vs. Robert Hoover Rev Trust The County was represented by Code Enforcement Supervisor Cristina Perez. The Respondent was present. Violations: Ordinance(s) 04 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code; Section 2.01.00(A). Recurring Violation: Unlicensed/inoperable vehicles stored outside on Estates zoned property. 10 VII. 16110116, A Folio No: 37348360006 Violation address: 1280 25" St. SW, Naples The Respondent, who resides at 1280 25th Street SW, Naples, Florida, is the Trustee of the Robert Hoover Revocable Trust. Supervisor Perez stated the violation has not been abated and fines continue to accrue. Fines have accrued at the rate of $100.00 per day for the period from May 22, 2010 through July 16, 2010 (55 days) for a total fine amount of $5,500.00. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.64 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $5,612.64. The Respondent stated his mother -in -law recently passed away and he suffered a stroke earlier in the year and has been diagnosed with bone cancer. He is receiving Social Security Disability payments. Supervisor Perez stated two of the vehicles were licensed on May 24, 2010 and only one remains unlicensed. The Respondent stated it is operable and he is trying to sell it. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the Motion to August 6, 2010 and ruled the fines will be stayed. She suggested the Respondent pay the Operational Costs of $112.64 as soon as possible. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order: 1. Case #CEPM 20080008180 — BCC vs. Graciela N. Susi The County was requested by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letourneau. The Respondent was present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22 Building and Building Regulations, Article II, Florida Building Code, Section 22- 26(103.11.2) No protective barrier - surrounding swimming pool. Folio No: 49660105665 Violation address: 2130 Morning Sun Lane, Naples, FL The Respondent stated her correct name is Graciela Diaz - Mainza, and resides at 4109 Covey Run, Naples, Florida 34109. Supervisor Letourneau stated Part `B" of the Order was abated as of November 5, 2009 but has not abated Part "C" of the Order (install a permanent barrier), and fines continue to accrue. 11 161 1u161a1op Fines have accrued at the rate of $200.00 per day for the period from December 3, 2009 through July 16, 2010 (226 days) for a total fine amount of $45,200.00. Abatement costs incurred by the County in the amount of $750.00 have not been paid. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $117.70 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $46,067.70. Supervisor Waldron stated the Motion was made to amend the Order to include the County's costs for abatement and to update the fines to the present date. The Respondent stated the Bank informed her the property was to be sold in foreclosure in February 2010 so she moved. She thought the Bank had acquired the property. Supervisor Waldron noted the foreclosure proceeding was dismissed by the Court and the Respondent still owns the property. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion. The Special Magistrate suggested the Respondent contact the Collier County Bar Association's Foreclosure Task Force to discuss possible options. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings: 9. Case #CEPM 20080016337 — BCC vs. James K. & Deborah B. Towne The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joseph Mucha who was present. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22 -231 (12c), Vacant structure with damaged roof. Folio No: 35759720004 Violation address: 4419 18'h Ave SW, Naples The Notice of Violation was posted at the property and the Courthouse on April 20, 2010. The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on June 9, 2010. Investigator Mucha introduced one photograph, dated April 20, 2010, which was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. He stated the violation has not been abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found 12 16 1 jiuC 12 *0 1 01'R GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to hire a licensed General Contractor to obtain required Permits, inspection, and a Certificate of Occupancy /Completion for repair of the roof on or before August 16, 2010 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the property owners. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. The Respondents were 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 16, 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: $11229 10. Case #CEPM 20100001420 — BCC vs. Joseph & Karen Salvatoriello The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Carol Sykora who was present. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Building and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22 -231 (15)(12n). A private dwelling swimming pool that has been improperly maintained so as to create a safety hazard or harbor insect infestation. Water has been allowed to stagnate and become polluted with green algae. The pool screen enclosure is torn and the doors are unsecured allowing possible access to the pool area. Folio No: 71373120002 Violation address: 18445 Royal Hammock Blvd, Naples The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on June 28, 2010. Investigator Sykora introduced five photographs, dated May 13, 2010, which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. She stated the violations have not been abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to either: (1) chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi- weekly treatments to maintain clean pool water on or before July 19, 2010 or a fine of 13 1611 JC 1 201 ora $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate; -OR- (2) chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of rain water, pursuant to HUD standards, on or before July 19, 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 Respondents were further ordered to repair the screened pool enclosure and secure the doors to the screened pool enclosure on or before July 19, 2010 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the property owners. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case in the amount of $112.29 on or before August 16, 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: $112.29 15. Case #CEV 20100003067 — BCC vs. Edita Technical Land Trust Kollar Trust The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul who was present. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 4.05.03, Vehicles parked on grass Folio No: 36300080008 Violation address: 1983 Hunter Blvd, Naples The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on June 25, 2010. Investigator Paul introduced four photographs that were marked as County Exhibits "A" through "D" and admitted into evidence. He stated the violation has not been abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found 14 � I cl, 16 Fj July 16, 2010 GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to remove all vehicles from the front yard and park them on a stabilized pervious or imperviously- treated surface on or before July 19, 2010 or a fine of $50.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the 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 property owners. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case in the amount of $112.29 on or before August 16, 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: $112.29 C. Emergency Hearings: None RECESS: 1:00 PM RECONVENED: 1:05 PM VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 1. Case #CESD 20090015977 — BCC vs Timothy S Nelson The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Azure Sorrels. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and Florida Building Code, 2007 Edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.1. Unpermitted screened porch and unpermitted shed on property. Folio No: 22623200003 Violation address: 3461 Verity Lane, Naples The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on July 6, 2010. Investigator Sorrels stated the violation has not been abated and fines continue to accrue. Fines have accrued at the rate of $100.00 per day for the period from June 17, 2010 through July 16, 2010 (30 days) for a total fine amount of $3,000.00. 15 16 11 ,uCil� � �o Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.64 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $3,112.64. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $3,112.64 and noted fines continue to accrue. 2. Case #CEPM 20090015979 — BCC vs Timothy S Nelson The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Azure Sorrels. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Sections 22 -231 (12)(c), 22 -231 (12)(i) and 22 -243. Deteriorated fascia, unfinished roofing work, unsecured side door and broken windows on vacant home. Folio No: 22623200003 Violation address: 3461 Verity Lane, Naples The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on July 6, 2010. Investigator Sorrels stated the violation has not been abated and fines continue to accrue. Regarding Part "B," fines have accrued at the rate of $250.00 per day for the period from June 17, 2010 through July 16, 2010 (30 days) for a total fine amount of $7,500.00. Regarding Part "C," fines have accrued at the rate of $250.00 per day for the period from April 24, 2010 through July 16, 2010 (84 days) for a total fine amount of $21,000.00. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.82 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $28,612.82. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $28,612.82 and noted fines continue to accrue. 5. Case #CEPM 20080003112 — BCC vs. Jawed Dass & Mussarat Jawed The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letourneau. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22 -231 (15). Pool water is black and filled with algae. Folio No: 51147040121 Violation address: 8086 Tauren Court, Naples 16 The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on June 22, 2010. Supervisor Letourneau stated the violation was abated as of March 8, 2010. Fines have accrued at the rate of $250.00 per day for the period from January 26, 2009 through March 8, 2010 (42 days) for a total fine amount of $10,500.00. Abatement costs incurred by the County in the amount of $816.80 have not been paid. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.49 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $11,429.29. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $11,429.29. 6. Case #CEPM 20100003246 — BCC vs. Raul & Martha Reyes The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Cristina Perez. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section(S) 22 -231 (15) and 22 -231 (12)(1) Vacant home with pool water in green, stagnant condition as well as torn screening on pool cage. Folio No: 79904127023 Violation address: 7893 Umberto Court, Naples The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on June 17, 2010. Supervisor Perez stated the violation was abated as of May 21, 2010. Regarding Part "B," fines have accrued at the rate of $250.00 per day for the period from April 27, 2010 through May 21, 2010 (25 days) for a total fine amount of $6,250.00. Regarding Part "C," fines have accrued at the rate of $250.00 per day for the period from April 27, 2010 through May 21, 2010 (25 days) for a total fine amount of $6,250.00. Abatement costs incurred by the County in the amount of $584.00 have not been paid. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.91 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $13,196.91. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $13,196.91. 17 1611 ,(;1.,o ,El 7. Case #CEPM 20090005155 — BCC vs. Andrew Miller & Lauren Gilbert The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letourneau. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22 -231 (15) Private swimming pool not maintained containing green, polluted, algae filled water conducive to insect infestation. Folio No: 49660104585 Violation address: 2063 Morning Sun Lane The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on June 22, 2010. Supervisor Letourneau stated the violation was abated as of February 3, 2010. Fines have accrued at the rate of $250.00 per day for the period from December 15, 2009 through February 3, 2010 (51 days) for a total fine amount of $12,750.00. Abatement costs incurred by the County in the amount of $795.00 have not been paid. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.29 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $13,657.29. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $13,657.29. 9. Case #CEPM 20090015934 — BCC vs Bryon & Stephanie Goldizen The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letourneau. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22 -231 (15). Swimming pool not maintained, containing stagnate, algae filled water conducive to harboring insect infestation. Folio No: 64626000103 Violation Address: 3036 Old Cove Way, Naples Supervisor Letourneau stated the violations were abated as of March 9, 2010. Fines have accrued at the rate of $250.00 per day for the period from January 26, 2009 through March 9, 2010 (43 days) for a total fine amount of $10,750.00. Abatement costs incurred by the County in the amount of $877.20 have not been paid. 18 X611C1.4 July 16, 2010 Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.29 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $11,739.49. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $11,739.49. VII. OLD BUSINESS B. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order: 2. Case #CEPM 20090008987 — BCC vs Jerry D & Susan E Currie The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letourneau. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22 -231 (15). Pool is green, stagnant, and not maintained. Folio No: 36248400009 Violation Address: 1797 54' St. SW, Naples The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on July 2, 2010. Supervisor Letourneau stated the violation was abated as of May 14, 2010. Fines have accrued at the rate of $100.00 per day for the period from September 26, 2009 through May 14, 2010 (231 days) for a total fine amount of $23,100.00. Abatement costs incurred by the County in the amount of $750.00 have not been paid. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $117.96 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $23,967.96. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order to include the abatement costs of $750.00 and to bring the amount of the fines current, for a total amount due of $23,967.96. 3. Case #CEPM 20080003635 — BCC vs. Brian & Sylvia Christopher The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jennifer Waldron. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22 -231, Subsection 15. Private pool maintenance violation, water is in algaed and stagnant condition. Folio No: 68827502859 Violation address: 341 Ibis Way, Naples 19 1611 is Y Jul 16 010 Supervisor Waldron stated the Motion was made to include the authority for the County to abate the violations if the Respondents have not complied by the deadline. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order. C. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order: 1. Case #CEPM 20100003306 — BCC vs. Vanessa L. Curley- Friedland The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jennifer Waldron. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI Property Maintenance Code, Section 22- 231(15) Failure to maintain private swimming pool. Folio No: 59940900046 Violation Address: 5181 Mahogany Ridge Drive, Naples Supervisor Waldron stated the Motion was made because the property was acquired by a bank and the violations have been abated. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order. 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 three 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 August 6, 2010 at 9:00 AM, located at the Collier County Government Center, Administrative Building "F, " 3rd Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. 20 1611 Cliy�' A6410 There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 1:31 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING enda Garre n, Special Magistrate The Minutes wereyapproved by the Special Magistrate on kVrA — o p as presented ✓ , or as amended 21 161 1 2 July 1, 201 AU' 0 4 ry Commissioners MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE INTERSECTION SAFETY PROGRAM Fiala ✓ Halas Henning Naples, Florida, July 21, 2010 Coyle 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 ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor Cpl. Mike Peabody, Collier County Deputy Sheriff Mac. 231 Deb: Copies to: 1611 C2 Y 21 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: 9:10 AM RECONVENED: 9:30 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 #5, Notice #1361000131834 — BCC vs. Robert G. and Carole L. Beauregard • Agenda #10, Notice #1361000079165 — BCC vs. John M. and Amanda Marie Catania • Agenda #12, Notice #1361000091848 — BCC vs. William Edward Clark • Agenda #14, Notice #1361000142385 — BCC vs. Nathan J. Dineen • Agenda #15, Notice #1361000136213 — BCC vs. Robert S. Epple • Agenda #16, Notice #1361000127675 — BCC vs. Darryl Wayne Fales and Melanie Mason • Agenda #17, Notice #1361000127964 — BCC vs. James Steven Farnsworth • Agenda #18, Notice #1361000118187 — BCC vs. Ivan Fincham and Sandra Hampton • Agenda #20, Notice #1361000113410 — BCC vs. Tammy L. Gardner • Agenda #29, Notice #1361000122361— BCC vs. Jennifer LaLlave • Agenda #31, Notice #1361000152541— BCC vs. Howard Harbison Logan • Agenda #33, Notice #1361000123161— BCC vs. Jason Hamilton Mikes • Agenda #36, Notice #1361000079546 — BCC vs. Linda J. Murphy • Agenda #38, Notice #1361000138433 — BCC vs. Sebastian J. Paguni • Agenda #42, Notice #1361000107578 — BCC vs. Julio Cesar Rodriguez • Agenda #44, Notice #1361000137328 — BCC vs. Christopher James Ryan • Agenda #45, Notice #1361000124771— BCC vs. Christopher James Ryan • Agenda #47, Notice #1361000143649 — BCC vs. William H. Scull • Agenda #48, Notice #1361000144753 — BCC vs. Frances H. Shipman • Agenda #49, Notice #1361000113915 — BCC vs. David Philip Sliwa • Agenda #50, Notice #1361000153028 — BCC vs. Winifred Susan Smith • Agenda #55, Notice #1361000086459 — BCC vs. Terry Read Walston 161 J 2�Z 14 (b) Under Item IV (A), "Hearings," the following cases were DISMISSED by the County: • Agenda #6, Notice #1361000111455 — BCC vs. Lisa Ann Blount • Agenda #30, Notice #1361000152293 — BCC vs. Howard Harbison Logan • Agenda #35, Notice #1361000136353 — BCC vs. Geraldine Ann Moser - Cohen • Agenda #54, Notice #1361000101001— BCC vs. Richard L. Wagenheim (c) Under Item V (A), "Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order," the following case was ADDED: • Notice #1361000064944 — BCC vs. Glenn Frankie Puopolo 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 — June 7,2010: The Minutes of the Intersection Safety Program Hearing held on June 7, 2010 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Hearings: 34. Notice #1361000113949 — BCC vs Timothy E Moffitt The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent resides at 1353 Pelican Avenue, Naples, Florida, and verified he is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: April 22, 2010 Time: 9:42 AM Location: Intersection of Airport Pulling Road North and Radio Road Cpl. Peabody presented the video for the Special Magistrate to review. The Respondent objected to the admission of the video based upon "Chain of Custody." He cited the equipment used to record the video was not owned/operated by the Sheriff's Office, the images were captured /reviewed by a private company that is not located in Collier County, and the officer who issued the Citation was not present. The Special Magistrate stated no evidence was presented to substantiate tampering or the evidence was tainted, and it was accepted 16111,.G2 H The Respondent stated there was no audio to accompany the video. He claimed he was moving out of the way of an emergency vehicle coming up behind him, as required by Florida Statute, and he violated the "right on red" in order to allow room. He stated he contacted the company to complain the video did not capture the images of the other cars behind him also moving over. The Special Magistrate ruled there were extenuating circumstances and the Respondent was NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation. 1. Notice #1361000122684 — BCC vs. Eric J. Alexander The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent resides at 654 Squire's Circle, #201, Naples, Florida 34104 and verified he is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: April 25, 2010 Time: 7:41 AM Location: Intersection of Airport- Pulling Road and Radio Road Cpl. Peabody presented the video for the Special Magistrate to review. The Respondent contended it appeared as it he stopped and saw nothing "unsafe" about the way his vehicle entered the intersection. He stated the process was simply a "money grab." He stated even though it could not afford an additional $50.00 just to be heard, he wanted to speak. He stated he should not have to pay a fine for a "safety violation" that occurred at 7:41 in the morning when there was very little traffic. He claimed the issue was not about safety but about how much money could be generated and it was an unfair burden on the taxpayers of Collier County. The Special Magistrate stated the Ordinance in effect on the day the violation occurred requires a complete stop before making a right turn on a red light. She further stated a "rolling" stop is not allowed and the law is not subjective or it would have no valid application. 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: $11250 Supervisor Waldron stated the County had WITHDRAWNthe following case: • Agenda #2, Notice #1361000139688 — BCC vs. Andrew Eric Anderson 16,J,1.62 t4 4. Notice #1361000099080 — BCC vs. Lorraine Anne Barker or Steven L. _Thompson The Hearing was requested by the Respondent, Lorraine Anne Barker, who was present. The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent stated her mailing address is Post Office Box 209, Fort Myers, Florida. Date of Violation: April 15, 2010 Time: 9:16 PM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and U.S. 41 /Tamiami Trail North The Respondent stated her name is on the title, but the car was awarded to her former husband as part of their divorce proceedings. She further stated she has no access to the vehicle and her name cannot be removed from the title until the loan is paid off. She presented a copy of her divorce decree with the "Division of Assets" which was marked as Respondent's Exhibit #1 and admitted into evidence. The Special Magistrate ruled there were extenuating circumstances and the Respondent was NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation. 32. Notice #1361000123989 — BCC vs. Karen Anne Lussier The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent resides at 6103 Manchester Place, Naples, Florida 34110, and verified she is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: April 25, 2010 Time: 2:17 PM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and U.S. 41 /Tamiami Trail North Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. The vehicle entered the intersection under a red light without making a complete stop. The Respondent stated there can be various interpretations of the video. She further stated no one — pedestrian or bicycler — was present at the cross -walk and she did not place anyone "in harm's way" by making a safe right turn. She claimed she satisfied the requirement of the revised Safety Ordinance to turn in a "careful and prudent manner." The Special Magistrate stated the Ordinance defines what is "safe" and requires a full, complete stop. She noted the revisions to the Ordinance were not applied retroactively. I 6jjy4, Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 22. Notice #1361000154166 — BCC vs. Sandie Ann Howe or Elliot Jozef Kneba The Hearing was requested by the Respondent, Elliot Kneba, who was present. The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent resides at 793 97th Avenue North, Naples, Florida 34108, and verified he is the registered owner of the vehicle. He owns the vehicle with his mother, Sandie Ann Howe. Date of Violation: May 8, 2010 Time: 7:23 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and U.S. 41 /Tamiami Trail North Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. The Respondent claimed he saw the flash of the camera in his rear view mirror and stated he turned under a green arrow. He requested the Special Magistrate review the video and still photographs again. The Special Magistrate stated she saw the yellow arrow while the Respondent's vehicle was turning. The Special Magistrate ruled the Respondent was NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation. 28. Notice #1361000150842 — BCC vs Gina Carla Ladosinskv The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody The Respondent resides at 5271 Tree Tops Drive, Naples, Florida, and verified the vehicle she is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: May 5, 2010 Time: 5:01 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and U.S. 41 /Tamiami Trail N. Cpl. Peabody presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. 6 1JU121,2C2 The Respondent claimed she made a short stop at the intersection and stopped again after crossing the white line to view oncoming traffic. She further stated cars coming in the opposite direction cannot make a "u -turn" at the intersection, making it safer for her to enter the intersection before stopping. The Special Magistrate reviewed the video again and stated the Respondent's vehicle did brake. The Special Magistrate ruled the Respondent was found NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation. RECESS: 10:57 AM RECONVENED: 11:11 AM 3. Notice #1361000131370 — BCC vs. Bo Goran E. Andersson The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: April 28, 2010 Time: 1:17 PM Location: Intersection of Airport- Pulling Road and Radio Road Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs the Special Magistrate for review. The Special Magistrate stated the vehicle in question did not stop and a violation occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 7. Notice #1361000148945 — BCC vs. James Donald Brown and Christine Hastings The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: May 5, 2010 Time: 8:39 AM Location: Intersection of Radio Road and Livingston Road 161j, 2 " <~ Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. 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 Supervisor Waldron stated the County had WITHDRAWNthe following case: • Agenda #8, Notice #1361000097670 — BCC vs. Elizabeth Cardelle or Alexander Pena 9. Notice #1361000101670 — BCC vs Gavle J Carson The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: April. 15, 2010 Time: 5:30 PM Location: Intersection of Airport- Pulling Road and Radio Road Cpl. Peabody presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. He stated there as an error because incorrect photographs were attached to the video. The Special Magistrate DISMISSED the Citation at the request of the County. Supervisor Waldron stated the County had WITHDRAWN the following cases: • Agenda #11, Notice #1361000131123 — BCC vs. Hilda J. Clair • Agenda #13, Notice #1361000133715 — BCC vs. Michael Schatz Diamond and Nina Shafran • Agenda #19, Notice #1361000133582 — BCC vs. Michael William Frazier and Robert Edward Frazier • Agenda #21, Notice # 1361000144456 — BCC vs. David R. Horn (Note: The following four cases were presented in chronological order and not in numeric order.) 23. Notice #1360900140283 BCC vs. Allen Roberts Joslin The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. 161jul 2 1, (;2 q Date of Violation: November 23, 2009 Time: 5:30 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. 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 26. Notice #1360900180248 — BCC vs. Allen Roberts Joslin The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondents were not present. Date of Violation: December 23, 2000 Time: 6:38 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. The Special Magistrate stated a violation had occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondents are allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $11250 25. Notice #1361000060876 — BCC vs. Allen Roberts Joslin The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: March 123, 2010 Time: 11:36 AM Location: Intersection of Airport- Pulling Road and Immokalee Road Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. a 16 full,, 1 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 24. Notice #1361000114798 — BCC vs. Allen Roberts Joslin The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: April 22, 2010 Time: 1:54 PM Location: Intersection of Radio Road and Livingston Road Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. 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 $75.00 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $125.00 27. Notice #1361000074034 — BCC vs. Michael Kochis The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: March 23, 2010 Time: 2:49 PM Location: Intersection of Golden Gate Blvd. and Collier Road Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. 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 10 161,1,,,,D2 the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 37. Notice #1361000121017 — BCC vs. Joan S. Owens The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: April 24, 2010 Time: 2:19 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and US 41 /Tamiami Trail N. Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. 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 39. Notice #1361000141569 — BCC vs. Lillian Camnuzano Papuacena The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: May 2, 2010 Time: 9:56 AM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Livingston Road Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. 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 $75.00 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $125.00 40. Notice #1361000122106 — BCC vs Stacie Youn2 Potanovic The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. 191 161 ly z • z The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: April 24, 2010 Time: 7:12 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and US 42 /Tamiami Trail N. Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. 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: $11250 41. Notice #1361000151931— BCC vs. Lune Ramos The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: May 6, 2010 Time: 7:39 AM Location: Intersection of Airport- Pulling Road and Pine Ridge Road Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. 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 43. Notice #1361000120860 — BCC vs. Joedy Ray Rognrud The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: April 24, 2010 Time: 11:26 PM Location: Intersection of Airport- Pulling Road and Radio Road 12 ' u J 21 16 , Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. 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 46. Notice #1361000122783 — BCC vs. Leon F. Sachs and Frances Greenberg The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: April 25, 2010 Time: 11:26 PM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and US 41 /Tamiami Trail N. Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. 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 Supervisor Waldron stated the County had WITHDRAWN the following cases: • Agenda #51, Notice #1361000116272 — BCC vs. Don Edward Tennant • Agenda #52, Notice #1361000109830 — BCC vs. Don Edward Tennant • Agenda #53, Notice #1361000151113 — BCC vs. Keith Wayne Upson and Giovana Linale 56. Notice #1361000094263 — BCC vs. Karen M Zarlenga The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: April 12, 2010 Time: 7:09 PM Location: Intersection of Park Ridge Road and US 41 /Tamiami Trail N. 13 16 July 10 1 .. Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. 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 V. OLD BUSINESS: A. Motion to Rescind Previously- Issued Order: 1._ Notice #1361000064944 — BCC vs. Glenn Frankie Puoaulo Supervisor Waldron stated the Respondent paid the fine. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion to Rescind a Previously - Issued Order. VI. NEXT HEARING DATE: August 2, 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 11:35 AM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE B nda Garretson, pecial Magistrate The Minutes were approved by the Special Magistrate on '�O o as presen , or as amended 14 161 z.�'� MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY RECEIVED SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AUG 10 2010 INTERSECTION SAFETY PROGRAM Fiala Eoarc of Ccu^rj commis =ners Halas Naples, Florida, August 2, 2010 Henni'n Coyle 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 ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor Cpl. Mike Peabody, Collier County Deputy Sheriff,.._ Date. Item #: C^,; 16 I J Q *4 g ust 2 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. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — July 21,2010: The Minutes of the Intersection Safety Program Hearing held on July 21, 2010 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item IV (A), "Hearings, " the following cases were WITHDRAWN by the County: • Agenda #2, Notice #1361000155007 — BCC vs. Fedod Bijou • Agenda #3, Notice #1361000131966 — BCC vs. Gary Layne Green • Agenda #4, Notice #1361000144456 — BCC vs. David R. Horn • Agenda #5, Notice #1361000144209 — BCC vs. Peter John Hull • Agenda #6, Notice #1361000152020 — BCC vs. Robert Wilison Matthews • Agenda #7, Notice #1361000149976 — BCC vs. David B. Strever (b) Under Item V (A), "Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order, "the following case was ADDED: • Notice #1361000141569 — BCC vs. Lillian Campuzano Pappacena 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. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Hearing: 1. Notice #1361000130729 — BCC vs. Francis Bevevino The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: April 28, 2010 Time: 9:53 AM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and US 41 /Tamiami Trail N. 1611AR010' Cpl. Peabody presented the video for the Special Magistrate to review. The Special Magistrate noted the driver didn't attempt to pause, and stated there was a violation of the Ordinance. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 V. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion to Rescind Previously- Issued Order: 1. Notice #1361000141569 — BCC vs. Lillian Camnuzano Panpacena Supervisor Waldron stated the Respondent paid the fine. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion to Rescind a Previously - Issued Order. There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by order of the Special Magistrate at 9:10 AM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE Jen"daGar4red_s$on., Special Magistrate The Minutes were approved by the Special Magistrate on as presented V/ , or as amended