Backup Documents 10/27/2009 Item #16I
16/1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
October 27, 2009
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1) Airport Authority:
Minutes of August 10,2009.
2) Animal Services Advisory Board:
Minutes of August 18, 2009.
3) Clam Bay Advisory Board
Minutes of August 13,2009.
4) Collier County Code Enforcement Board:
Minutes of August 27, 2009.
5) Collier County Planning Commission:
Minutes of August 6, 2009.
6) Contractors Licensing Board:
Minutes of August 19,2009.
7) County Government Productivity Committee:
Agenda of April 15, 2009; April 29, 2009; May 20, 2009;
June 17,2009; August 19,2009.
Minutes of April 15, 2009; April 29,2009; May 20, 2009;
June 17,2009; August 19,2009.
8) Development Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of August 5, 2009, including FORM 8B by George
Hermanson dated August 5, 2009 and FORM 8B by Robert Mulhere
dated August 5, 2009; September 2, 2009.
9) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee:
Agenda of September 16, 2009.
Minutes of August 19, 2009.
10) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee:
Minutes of February 4,2008.
11) Hispanic Affairs Advisorv Board:
Minutes of November 20, 2008.
12) Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board:
Minutes ofJ une 17, 2009.
13) 1mmokalee Beautification Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of September 23,2009.
Minutes of August 26,2009.
14) Land Acquisition Advisorv Committee:
Minutes of July 13, 2009.
15) Lelv Golf Estates Beautification Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of September 17, 2009.
Minutes of August 20, 2009.
16) Library Advisorv Board:
Agenda of August 19,2009; September 16, 2009.
Minutes ofJune 17,2009; August 19,2009.
17) Parks and Recreation Advisorv Board:
Minutes of August 19, 2009.
18) Pelican Bav Services Division Board:
Agenda of July 13,2009; August 5, 2009.
Minutes of July 13,2009; August 5, 2009.
19) Radio Road Beautification Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of September 15, 2009.
Minutes of August 25, 2009.
B. Other:
1) Code Enforcement Special Magistrate:
Minutes of September 4,2009.
16111
".I,las ~~~;I
r1iennin . :-/1// ,1-';;\ 1
CClyle~_ / rI
Ccletta .....--'-l. COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
MINUTES OF REGULAR MONDAY, AUGUST 10,2009 MEETING
Board of County Commissioners
Lloyd Byerhof
16 hiltvlo(
SEP 2 1 2009
MEMBERS Byron Meade
PlU:SENT: Jim Murray
Michael Klein
Steve Price
Dave Gardner
Frank Secrest
STAFF:
Theresa Cook
Tiffany Mendoza
Bob Tweedie
Colleen Greene
Jim Kenney Debi Mueller
Winona Stone
PUBLIC:
Tammy Nemecek
Penny Phillippi
Tom Conrecode
Dick Rice
Pete Salazar
Steve Hart
Pat Utter Fred Thomas
Ralph Hester Mark Minor
Nick Casalanguida
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Meeting called to order at I :00 p.m. A quorum was present throughout the meeting.
Prior to approving the Agenda, Mr. Meade provided a list ofthe projects, included associated
costs, completed by the Authority over the past several years. Mr. Gardner recommended that
the funding source(s) be included along with any cost estimates provided by the Authority,
especially since a large number of projects have received as much as ninety percent state or
federal funding. Mr. Meade also requested that all the Board members attend the September
15,2009 Board of County Commissioners meeting.
III, APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The following was added to the agenda:
Under Agenda Item VII. Executive Director's Report:
Item VII.I Old Business
A. 1mmokalee Community Redevelopment Agency - Penny Phillippi, Executive Director
1. Business Development Center Proposal
2. Marketing/Public Relation/Public Information - Steve Hart
Under Agenda Item VIII. New Business:
E. Resolution No. 09-41 approving and authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to
execute Q. Grady Minor and Associates, Inc. Work Order with CCAA Tracking #QGM-
FT-3696-09-05 in the amount of $5,995 for geotechnical engineering required for
construction of the taxiway at the Marco Island Executive Airport.
F, Collier County Transportation Department - Nick Casalanguida, Director Transportation
Planning
MISC. Corres:
. Land Acquisition - 103 acres for Immokalee runway extension to 7,300 ft. I D [ 1...1 { Dey
. Transportation's recommendation for the operation and infrastructUlp*',~lnpm~nt
ofthe Collier County Airports. 1IImt: \ 1.0 Ie. \) A \
CapiM to:
CCAA Minutes August 10,2009
1611!'Al~
Page 2
Mr. Murray then made a motion to approve the agenda as amended, Mr. Byerhof seconded,
and the Agenda, as amended, was approved by a 7-0 vote.
IV. APPROVAL OF JUNE 8,2009 MINUTES
Mr. Gardner made a motion to approve the June 8, 2009 minutes. Mr. Klein seconded, and the
June 8, 2009 minutes were approved by a 7-0 vote.
V. FINANCE REPORTS - MONTH ENDED MAY 2009 AND QUARTER ENDED JUNE
30,2009
As of June 30, 2009, the Immokalee Regional Airport has exceeded its budget for Jet-A fuel
sales. However Jet-A fuel sales at the Marco Island Airport, and Avgas sales at all three
County airports are down about thirty percent, which is in line with other area airports.
Margins on fuel sales are higher than budgeted. Mr. Gardner made a motion to approve the
finance reports. Mr. Klein seconded, and the finance reports were approved unanimously. No
action required.
VI, WORK ORDER/AGREEMENTS STATUS REPORT
The work order status report provides an update of the outstanding work orders and
contracts/agreements, including payments made to date. No action required.
VII. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Updates and discussion of the following took place:
Immokalee Regional Airport. The USDA-CCAA manufacturing facility went out to bid
approximately two weeks ago. The non-mandatory pre-bid meeting was held on August 5, and
there was "standing room only." About 160 businesses have downloaded the documents for
bidding, which is scheduled to be opened in late August.
A meeting is scheduled with Real Estate Services, Collier Enterprises, two appraisal
companies, and the Airport Authority to discuss the appraisals for the land acquisition of 103
acres for the extension of Runway 9/27.
The Master Plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on June 23, 2009.
Mr. Murray met with the Economic Development Council (EDe) and their Blue Ribbon
Committee. The EDC plans to present recommendations from the Committee at the
Authority's September 14,2009 meeting prior to making its presenting to the BCC at the
September 15, 2009 meeting. The consensus of the Committee is that the Airport Authority
should remain its own FBO. The Committee also concluded that the Airport should be
marketed as alternative to the Naples Airport, and needs to encourage aviation related
businesses.
Construction of the apron expansion project is complete. Restringing of edge lighting that
needed to be removed for the expansion of the apron is being done in-house, with an estimated
cost savings of about $50,000 over out sourcing the work.
Y:\AdministrationIAA Board\Minutes\08-10-09 minutes.doex
CCAA Minutes August 10, 2009
16 IlfpagA 1
The parking area for the Florida Army National Guard has been fenced, and light poles are up.
Everglades Airpark Hangar Reconstruction. Mr. Kenney stated that the floor has been
removed, and the Authority is getting reading to take delivery of the piling system. Delivery of
building in expected in about seven to eight weeks.
Marco Island Executive Airport. The Master Plan was approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on June 23, 2009. Staff met with URS engineers and local utilities to develop
utility relocations plans for the taxiway and apron projects, as well as the entire Master Plan of
the airport.
Seventeen bids were received for the Construction of the Apron (North) Expansion and Parking
Lot Relocation. The lowest qualified bidder is DeAngelis Diamond Construction.
The Authority has sent letters to our State Representatives, Congressman, the Florida Airports
Council (F AC), the International Council of Airports, FAA Orlando and Regional Offices, and
the FDOT requesting support for funding of the taxiway.
February through May, the Authority engaged in radio advertising to promote the airport and
some of the services available, primarily Marco Aviation and Island Hoppers. They reported
that it was successful and generated a lot of interest and some business for them.
Island Hoppers has just received its Part 135 Air Charter certificate. There are now two air
charter operators at the airport.
Runway 17/35 was restriped and marked using in-house labor and equipment purchased
through last year's budget for less than $2,000 versus quotes from outside vendors of about
$25,000 - $30,000.
Fuel Qualitv Assurance. The Marco Island Executive Airport and the Immokalee Regional
Airport had their annual Chevron-Texaco fuel quality assurance inspections in late July. Both
airports received compliance scores of 100%.
Internship Program. The Authority has just completed a summer internship program funded
by two F AC grants of $5,000 each. This was the second round of internship grants the
Authority has received from the F AC over the past three years. Two students were recruited
from Ave Maria for the program.
VII.! OLD BUSINESS
Penny Phillippi, Executive Director, Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
presented a brief proposal regarding a CRA-Airport Authority partnership. The primary goal of
this partnership would be to create an environment that will accelerate the development of
business in Immokalee by creating a business development center/business incubator that is
accountable, with tangible measurable results.
Y:\AdministrationIAA Board\MinutesI08-JO-09 minutes.docx
CCAA Minutes August 10, 2009
16 H IpagA 1
The CRA has committed $90,000 to this project in the first year, and is asking that the Airport
Authority provide "in-kind" services equivalent to about $104,125 resulting from reduced rent,
administrative services, and insurance and continued maintenance of the facility.
Mr. Thomas emphasized that there needs to have a time limit on how long a buisness can
remain in the Business Development Center.
Mr. Klein made a motion that the Authority approve the concept as presented and discussed.
Mr. Price seconded, and the motion was approved unanimously.
Mr. Steve Hart talked about the need for an integrated approach to promote Immokalee, the
business development center, and the airport. The Authority agreed to defer the decision to
approve funding for promotion ofImmokalee.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Byerhofmade a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-37 affirming the County Manager's,
acting in absenteeism of the BCC, and the BCC's ratification of, the acceptance and execution
ofa FAA Grant Agreement in the amount of $247,000 to reimburse the acquisition of2.73
acres of land (Tract Q) purchased from WCI Communities on November 18, 2008 required for
Phase I of the Taxiway Project at the Marco Island Executive Airport. Mr. Klein seconded, and
Resolution No. 09-37 was approved unanimously.
Mr. Murray made a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-38 affirming the BCC's acceptance
and execution ofa FAA Grant in the amount of$49,148 for storm water management structures
required by South Florida Water Management District for the expansion of the aircraft apron at
the Immokalee Regional Airport. Mr. Klein seconded, and Resolution No. 09-38 was approved
unanimously.
Mr. Klein made a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-39 approving and authorizing the
Authority's Executive Director to execute Change Order #4 to Quality Enterprises USA, Inc.
Contract #07-4129 in the amount of $46,745 to provide storm water management structures,
required by the South Florida Water Management district, for the aircraft apron expansion at
the Immokalee Regional Airport, increasing the total amount of the contract from $871,135.63
to $917,880.63. Mr Byerhof seconded, and Resolution No. 09-39 was approved unanimously.
Mr. Price made a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-40 recommending awarding Bid #09-
5245 for construction ofthe "Marco Island Executive Airport Apron & Parking Lot Expansion"
to the lowest, qualified, responsive bidder meeting specifications, DeAngelis Diamond
Construction, Inc., and authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to execute a contract in
the amount of $645,207.63 with DeAngelis Diamond Construction, Inc. Mr. Murray seconded,
and Resolution No. 09-40 was approved unanimously.
Mr. Byerhof made a motion to approve Resolution No. 09-41 approving and authorizing the
Authority's Executive Director to execute A. Grady Minor and Associates, Inc. Work Order
with CCAA Tracking #QGM-FT-3696-09-05 in the amount of $5,995 for geotechnical
engineering required for construction of the taxiway at the Marco Island Executive Airport.
Mr. Murray seconded, and Resolution No. 09-41 was approved unanimously.
Y:\AdministrationlAA BoardIMinutesI08-10-09 minutes.docx
CCAA Minutes August 10, 2009
161tl Al
Page 5
.
l
Nick Casalanguida, Director of Transportation Planning, indicated that the Transportation
Department will not have a recommendation regarding the operation and infrastructure of the
Collier County Airports in September, but will recommend a three month extension.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Prior to adjourning, the Authority thanked and acknowledged Mr. Price for his long-time
service and contributions to the Airport Authority Board. Mr. Gardner made a motion that the
Authority Board present Mr. Price with a plaque for his service and contributions to the
Authority. Mr. Klein seconded, and the motion was approved unanimously. Mr. Price
abstained from voting.
The meeting was then adjourned "without objection."
Y:\AdministrationIAA BoardlMinutesI08-JO-09 minutes.docx
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
RECEIVED
SEP 2 3 2009
16 I 1 A ztif
August 18, 2009
Roard of County CommissiOners
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COLLIER COUNTY
DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, August 18, 2009
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Dornestic Anirnal
Services Advisory Cornrnittee in and for the County of Collier, having
conducted business herein, rnet 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
Marcia Breithaupt
Dr. Ruth Eisele
Sergeant David Estes
Tom Kepp, Jr.
Sabina Musci
Jim Rich
ALSO PRESENT: Amanda Townsend, Director. DAS
Nan Gerhardt, Shelter Operations Manager
Hailey Alonso, Administrative Assistant, DAS
Mile. ConC
OIII:~
_I: \lo rL t) A 7--
Copies to:
161 1
J'I 2
August 18, 2009
I. Call to Order
Chairman Michele Antonia called the meeting to order at 6:36 PM.
II. Attendance
Attendance was taken and a quorum established.
III. Approval of Agenda
Jim Rich moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second by Marcia Breithaupt.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes of July 21, 2009
Marcia Breithaupt moved to approve the minutes of July 21,2009 as submitted.
Second by Jim Rich. Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
V. Old Business
A. Directors Report
Amanda Townsend acknowledged and expressed her gratitude for the large
number of public and press attending.
B. Departmental Statistics and Reports (handouts attached - July 2009)
Statistics were reviewed and discussed.
y DAS stated Volunteer Hours are up because DAS has a reputation of
being a "good gig" amongst high school students.
y Students used the summer to meet their volunteer hour requirements by
the high school.
,. DAS kept costs down by doing surgery in-house.
y DAS received a $2,000 donation from a good Samaritan.
Amanda Townsend reported Trust Funds from private members are used
explicitly for surgery on injured animals and the Ordinance is liberal on how the
Trust Funds can be utilized.
C. 2010 DAS Potential Projects
Jim Rich distributed a priority list of 20 I 0 DAS Projects Report and DASAB
July 2009 Meeting Worksheet. a concept on upcoming projects. (See attached)
Amanda Townsend stated the ideas for the projects shown in the reports came
from public suggestions, budget workshop and previous meetings.
Jim Rich suggested prioritizing the 2010 DAS Projects in the following order:
.:. Trap Neuter and Return
.:. SpaylNeuter Programs
.:. Regulate Dog and Cat Breeding
.:. Improved Enforcement
.:. Strengthen Local Pet Lemon Laws
2
161,rA2
August 18, 2009
.:. Increased Adoptions
.:. Education
.:. Increased Revenues
.:. Benefits to Existing Pets
He suggested the Committee review the documentation and hold a Workshop
next month.
D. Microchip Research Policy - None.
E. DAS Mission Statement
Amanda Townsend gave a brief history of the Mission Statement and on a
workshop that was held in the spring of 2008 in which the public interacted.
Some public felt the Mission Statement was not appropriated because the word
"adoption" was not included. She consulted with the County Attorney and
County Managers Office and was determined the wording in the Mission
Statement was 100% the responsibility of the Director. Anyone can contact
the Board of County Commissioners and/or the Advisory Committee stating
their suggestion of a change to the Mission Statement. If appropriate, the
Committee would then vote on the change and suggest that change to the
Director. The Director would then decide if those changes need to be made.
Amanda Townsend explained putting the word "adoption" in the Mission
Statement will not help nor influence her to make decisions differently
for DAS. She stated she will do everything in her power to continue the
Adoption Program and her goal was to keep the animals from coming to the
shelter in the first place. She told the Committee and the Public there are
several ways to accomplish that goal.
The following is part of the 2010 Projects to consider:
· Services for Seniors and Housing and Human Services see a need to
help seniors keep their animals in their homes. Some want to keep their
pet but can no longer care for them. She asked for a volunteer Director
for the Program.
· Humane Education for Children in school on pet over population and
what to do about it. Educating children will lessen animals in shelters
for future years. This Program not available at this time. She asked a
volunteer to take charge of this program.
· The law states every pet in the County must have a license. Ifpeople
obey the law, it would increase income and if an animal became loose, it
would allow DAS to return the animal back to the rightful owner and not
cause additional shelter expense. Each license is $10, if the license is
not purchased it is $10 less to cover shelter costs.
Amanda Townsend read the "New" Mission Statement aloud -
To protect Collier County residents and visitors[rom animal-related injury and
zoonotic diseases. while promoting humane treatment of animals, positive
outcome for shelter animals. and responsible pet ownership.
3
August f,SOl "1
A 21
Speakers
The speakers were each allowed 3 minutes:
The following members were in favor of adding "adoption" to the Mission
Statement with prepared statements given.
.:. Janet Rossano, a business owner with a petition of 550 signatures.
.:. Terri Grandy
.:. Chuck Danielian
.:. Kimball McIlvine
.:. Steven Wright
.:. Pamela Rae
Ben Rae stated it was hard to following a meeting without an agenda. He also
asked if the minutes were available to the public.
Staff responded both agendas and minutes of meetings are public record
and available on Collier County Website. The Staff prints their own minutes
and agenda for each meeting. Minutes are generally posted seven days
after each meeting.
Nancy SaintAngelo Reyelt, a business owner read a prepared statement and
stated she has adopted five dogs from DAS. She stated DAS is receiving
support from the public. The Sheriffs Office donated over $300,000 to support
the growth mode.
Due to the 3 minute time limit per speaker she was unable complete her
comments.
The Committee Members expressed their views on adding the word "adoption"
to the Mission Statement.
Amanda Townsend responded she is not opposed to adoptions, she is in favor
oflower intakes and more return to owners. She also stated adoption was her
third choice and will not change the Mission Statement.
Jim Rich moved to see who (on the Advisory Board) is in favor of adding the
word "adoption" in the DAS Mission Statement. Second by Marcia
Breithaupt Motion passed 6-1. Sergeant David Estes opposed.
VI. New Business
A. Role and Procedure Clarification of DASAB - Jim Rich
Jim Rich stated he did research on his role on the Advisory Board. The
Advisory Board is a liaison between the Public and the BCC. He encouraged
the public contact anyone of the Advisory Board members anytime and they
would be their voice.
Amanda Townsend stated most Boards establish their own Rules and
Procedures. She stated she did not know if this Advisory Board had set rules
because she was unable to locate them.
4
16/ f1
fi 21
August 18, 2009
VII. Public Comment - See V
VIII. Advisory Board Member Comments
Marcia Breithaupt said Congress passed the Humanity and Pets Partnered
Through the Years aka "Happy Act." (See attached)
This Act allows a tax deduction for pet care expenses.
Sabina Musci stated she was glad the meeting was more civil.
Sergeant David Estes stated he hoped the passion everyone found in one word
would extend into the Senior Program.
Dr. Ruth Eisele stated the Committee voted in favor of most public speakers and
will now need their help in making changes to the Ordinance.
Michele Antonia asked the difference between a feral cat and the category on
Behavior Observe shown in the Euthanasia Breakdown Report.
Staff responded Behavior Observe Category covers cats that have been declawed
and have lived indoors. The cat responds to how they are handled and sometimes
bite. This type of cat could be a loving cat and is not dangerous but just grumpy
with unpredictable behavior.
Michele Antonia stated the Community Cat Coalition has started a "Food Bank" for
the needy that will provide food for dogs and cats and can visit the website at
www.colliercommunitycatcoalition.com for more information.
Next Advisory Board Meeting is scheduled jor September 15, 2009 at the Domestic
Animal Training Room, Davis Blvd., Naples, Florida
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by the order of the Chair at 8:05 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL
SERVICES
These minutes approved by Board/Committee on CI- f 5:- 0 q
as presented or as amended X
5
RECEIVED
SEP 2 4 2009
c~c9te~r1. 20A
~IifProval of ~utes
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta JC!/ (i)
I
Board of County Commissioners
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CLAM BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, August 13, 2009
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Clam Bay Advisory
Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, rnet on this date at 9:00 A.M., North Collier Regional Park in the
Adrninistration Building in Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
Chairrnan:
Vice Chairrnan:
James A. Carroll (Excused)
John Arceri
Ronald A. Glah
Noah Standridge
Robert Rogers
Kathy B. Worley
David Roellig
Tahlrnann Krurnm, Jr.
David Farrner
ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Managernent
Gail Harnbright, Accountant
Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney
Pam Keyes, Environmental Specialist Misc. Correa:
011I: I D ! 2.,1/09
lIllm': llo L L I ')A 'l)
":' -"ir,c;: trr
It.jll'
CBAC Septem"Jr 2 ,fo
VI-1 Approval of Minutes
2 of 8
~-7.
h-..-,I
1.
I. Call to Order
Mr. Arceri called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM
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. Krumm moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following additions:
Item VIII.I.c. - Water Quality Study Update
Item X.3 - Mangrove Maintenance Report by Consultants
Second by Mr. Farmer. Carried unanimously 6-0.
V. Public Comments
Michael Williams, Moorings Bay Taxing District addressed the Committee noting
he is familiar with the water flow between Clam Bay and Moorings Bay and
remembered when the flap gates were installed at Seagate Drive. They never worked
properly so were replaced. Based on historic observation, in his opinion, 98% of the
water flow is from Clam Bay into Moorings Bay and the statement that the water
from Moorings Bay flows into and pollutes Clam Bay is inaccurate.
It was noted this be addressed during the Water Quality Study.
VI. Approval of Minutes
1. July 16, 2009 - Clam Bay Advisory Committee Minutes
Mr. Krumm moved to approve the minutes of the July 16, 2009 meeting.
Second by Mr. Farmer. Carried unanimously 6-0.
Mr. Roellig arrived at 9:05 am
2. Approval of Subcommittee Minutes
Colleen Green, Assistant County Attorney noted the Subcommittees are no
longer meeting and is appropriate for the Full Committee to approve them if a
Subcommittee member could endorse them.
a. March 6, 2009 - Clam Bay Permit Subcommittee
Mr. Krumm moved to approve the minutes of the March 6, 2009 meeting.
Second by Mr. Standridge. Carried unanimously 7-0.
b. March 18,2009 - Clam Bay Mangrove Maintenance and Habitat
Subcommittee
Mr. Roellig moved to approve the minutes of the March 18, 2009 meeting.
Second by Ms. Worley. Carried unanimously 7-0.
CBAclpoJl.lg II 3
VI~ 1 Approval of Minutes
30f8
VII. Chairman's Comments
None
VIII. Staff Repo rts
1. Activity Update on the following:
a. 10 Year Tidal Flushing Maintenance Dredging Permit Application
Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management noted the application
has been submitted and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
has responded with a "Request for Additional Information" regarding the
following:
I. Assurances the most recent Environmental data and reports are being
utilized in the application.
2. Provision of additional geo-technical information (soil borings,
clarification on the silt content of a sample, etc.)
3. Notification that monitoring may be required to determine the optimal
"cut" which may lengthen the permit process.
He noted delays in issuance ofthe permit may create a problem should the
area need to be dredged in the event of the Storm Emergency and no permit
has been issued.
Staff will be responding to the Request for Additional Information over the
next 30 days and anticipated the permit process may include a Request for
Public Hearing.
He estimated approximately 9-12 months before a permit may be issued.
Mr. Roellig passed photos he has taken of the Pass, which indicates it is very
shallow.
b. Navigational Markers FDEP Permit
Gary McAlpin stated the permit has been applied for, and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection has Requested Additional
Information from the County.
Pelican Bay and other private individuals have petitioned for a Public Hearing
on the application.
He estimated at least one year before a permit may be official.
c. Water Quality Study Update
Gary McAlpin noted the Board of County Commissioners have agreed to
fund a portion of the Study in the amount of$120,000 and the City of Naples
has pledged $25,000 to the Study (to review the existing data and collect new
data, etc. required in the proposed Study). Most of the new data collection
will be performed during the week of August 17 - 24.
It is anticipated a draft Report will be available on October 17,2009. The
Report will include a summary on the need for "Modeling" to complete the
Study.
cs, cLm1WiooA 3 .~,
v,-~~,It'i.s
4018
Sneakers
Doug Findlay, stated he is familiar with the Estuary as he kayaks in that area
and believes that the Water Quality Study to be performed by PBS&J will
show 90% of the water flow is from North to South, agreeing with the earlier
comments by Mr. Williams.
Doug Fee requested clarification on the purpose of the Water Quality Study.
Gary McAlpin noted the Report will provide direction on the means required
to optimize the flows within the System and provide recommendations for the
installation of improvements to control storm water, etc. in the Estuary to
ensure proper water quality is achieved.
Alice Parker, Pelican Bay Resident, stated she observes the System on a
daily basis and noted it is difficult to judge the flows by observation, as it is a
very dynamic system.
Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident requested clarification on the definition
of the "System" and if it includes Doctors Pass.
Gary McAlpin noted the area of definition for the Clam Bay Estuary is from
Vanderbilt Beach Road to Seagate (Drive); however, to complete a proper
study, it is necessary to collect data from surrounding water bodies, which
may affect the Water Quality of the "System."
Mr. Rogers arrived at 9:35 am
IX. New Business
1. Safety Signs at Clam Pass - Beach and Channel
Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Update The Clam Bay
Advisory Committee on Safety Marker Progress for Clam Pass." Also submitted
was an email string between himself, Staff, and the Pelican Bay Foundation on
the proposed wording for "safety signs" in Clam Pass to enhance the safety
between swimmers and boaters who utilize the area.
The proposed wording has been submitted to the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission who is required to approve the final language of the
signs.
He estimated the signs may be approved in approximately 2 months.
Sneaker
Sarah Wu, Seagate Resident spoke on behalf of Ernest Wu, President of Seagate
Homeowners Association noting he has reviewed the signs and personally
approves of the language. The Association has not had the opportunity to
formulate an official opinion.
Q:'"
1 L. r
CBAe,L,pgbel, 9
VI-1 Approval of Mi utes
5018
A3
X. Old Business
1. Mission Statement Update and Review of Open Items
Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Review with the Clam Bay
Advisory Committee Mission Statement Commitments, Assess Progress and
Revise as needed' for review by the Committee.
Mr. Arceri reviewed 3 commitments outlined in the Mission Statement:
"Completion of Management Plan and submit a Draft Report to the Coastal
Advisory Board (CAC) by 9/30/09", "submit a written Report to the Board of
County Commissioners (BCC) by 10/20/09 with recommendations on whether the
BCC should continue with the Committee" and "if continuation is approved make
any necessary changes to the Plan based on guidance from the CAC and the BCC
andfinalize the Report by 12/31/09."
Discussion ensued on the feasibility of meeting the deadlines.
Gary McAlpin noted a draft report on the activities of the CBAC will be
available at the September CBAC meeting and include the Progress to date, a
Completion Schedule and recommendations on how to complete the Master Plan
for the Estuary.
The Committee reviewed the status of the Subcommittee's:
. Subcommittees I (Permits) and 2 (Water Quality Mixing and Runoff)
have completed their duties, or have items awaiting funding approval
by the BCC.
. Subcommittee 3 (Mangrove Maintenance and Estuary Habitat) has
completed its task and determined that the on-going Maintenance
Programs should continue.
It was noted the maintenance for this fiscal year has been fully funded
and being performed by Pelican Bay Services Division. The County
continues to work with the Division in the funding and scope of the
work.
. Subcommittee 4 (Maintenance Dredging and Bypassing) activities will
be determined as a result of the Water Quality Study being performed
by PBS&J.
. The topics of Public Education and Outreach have not yet been
initiated.
. The topic of Funding is the responsibility of the Staff and is
continuing.
Gary McAlpin noted he will have PBS&J contact Kathy Worley for any
available data that may be of assistance to the Water Quality Study.
Speaker
Jerry Moffatt, Pelican Bay Services Division noted the funding for the on-going
maintenance is being supplied by the Division and the County.
lL nil' 'A .~..
c Wte.lfbet, 2(, '-3 ..
VI-1 Approval of Minutes
6 of 8
The Committee determined Mr. Krumm meet with citizens Cora Obley and Sarah
Wu to address the topic of Public Education and Outreach.
Gary McAlpin noted the Draft Report will be provided to the CAC and the BCC
in October.
Colleen Green noted the Committee should provide a recommendation by
October 20, 2009 to the BCC on whether or not the CBAC should continue.
Ms. Worley took issue with the statement contained in item #3 of the Executive
Summary, which states, "Negative comments/lobbying by a Clam Bay Advisory
Committee member to the BCC negatively impacted full funding and our ability to
get everything done at once." She stated:
. She had provided a minority opinion to the BCC regarding some
decisions made by the CBAC as she voted in the minority at the
Committee meeting and noted she has a right to address the BCC on
issues. Her comments did not negatively affect the outcome of the
decision,
. The funding decision was a result of budget constraints/cuts to County
Programs given the current economic climate.
. She expressed concern, with respect to the Water Quality Study, the
bidding specifications (Best Value Offer).
Mr. Arceri expressed concern that the Water Quality Study was originally
approved unanimously by the CBAC; there was no "minority" vote.
If it is the wish of an individual to provide a "minority opinion" in the future, the
item can be brought in front of the full Committee so they are aware of it.
Ms. Worley agreed, but noted the issue of a Best Value Offer for the Water
Quality Study arose shortly before the BCC meeting and there was not ample time
to present it to the full Committee.
3. Funding Update
Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Update the Clam Bay
Advisory Committee on funding progress and plans" for review by the
Committee.
Speaker
Marcia Cravens expressed concern on the scope of the Committee as the
problem with Water Quality lies within Moorings Bay and the untreated storm
water entering the Bay. She requested the Committee rename itself "Moorings
Bay Advisory Committee." She expressed concern that the County may make
improper changes, which may inappropriately affect the Growth Management
Plan.
She submitted the following documents for the record:
. Collier County Ordinance 76-30
. Collier County Ordinance 93-37
CBAC selm62J 11
VI~1 Approval of Minutes
7 of 8
A3
. "Coastal Zone Management Plan for Collier County Florida, October
1, 1991
. Collier County Resolution 92-119
. Collier County Ordinance 96-16
. Executive Summary "Recommend the Board of County Commissioners
Approve the Ordinance Posting the Clam Bay System as an Idle Speed
Zone" - Agenda Item April 9, 1996.
. "Request for Public Hearing"- Re: Ordinance 96-16.
. Minutes, Board of County Commissioners meeting April 9, 1996
. County Growth Management Plan - Conservation and Coastal
Management Element. Adopted October, 199, last amended January
2007
. Minutes, Board of County Commissioners, May 18, 1999
. Diagnostic Feasibility Study for Moorings Bay, Collier County
Florida, Dated January 1981 - Prepared by Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
. Save the Bays Report Volume 6, August 2008.
3. Mangrove Maintenance by Consultants
Previously discussed under item X.l - Mission Statement Update and Review of
Open Items.
Speaker
Marcia Cravens noted there exist technical resources, which could be utilized for
any proposed changes to the Natural Resources and Protection Area.
She submitted the following documents for the record:
. "Natural Resources of Collier County Florida - PartI- Beach
Management Planning and implementation Strategies at the Local
Level, 1983 - Technical Report No. 83-1."
. "Natural Resources of Collier County Florida - Part -3 - A Resource
Management Program for the Coastal Barriers of Collier County,
Florida Beach Management Planning and implementation Strategies
at the Local Level, 1983 - Technical Report No. 83-3. "
. "Natural Resources of Collier County Florida - Part -1 - Natural
Resources Management 1984 - Technical Report No. 84-1."
. "Natural Resources of Collier County Florida - Part -2 -Coastal
Barrier Resources 1984 - Technical Report No. 84-2."
. "Natural Resources of Collier County Florida - Part -3 - Coastal
Estuarine Resources 1984 - Technical Report No. 84-3."
. "Natural Resources of Collier County Florida - Part -4 - Coastal
Zone Management Units: Data Inventory and Analysis - 1984 -
Technical Report No. 84-4. "
. "Natural Resources of Collier County Florida - Part -6 - Draft
Ordinancesfor Protection of Coastal Ecosystems 1984 - Technical
Report No. 84-6. "
CBAC s'\erd?er,:fl.~19 A, 3'\
VI-1 Ap~vt{21 f\ltute~
8018
. "Natural Resources of Collier County Florida - Recommendations
and a Program for Resource Management and Protection for the
Undeveloped Lands of Collier County's Coastal Zone -1985-
Technical Report No. 85-1."
. "Natural Resources of Collier County Florida - Natural Resources
Management in the Coastal, Inland and Upland Zones of Collier
County: Summary of Data Analyses and Program Recommendations -
1988 ~ Technical Report No. 88-1. "
Mr. Arceri requested clarification on the purpose of providing the memo in the
CBAC meeting packet from Turrell, Hall and Assoc. to Pelican Bay Services
Division dated March 20, 2009 - Subject "Mangrove Maintenance Scope of Work."
Gary McAlpin noted this is part of the scope of work being discussed with Pelican
Bay Services Division previously discussed under item X.I - Mission Statement
Update and Review of Open Items.
XI. Announcements
None
XII. Committee Member Discussion
Ms. Worley noted her comments are not to be deemed personal in nature towards
County Staff, but requested full disclosure of any future items applicable to the
Committee.
XIII. Next Meeting Date
September 24, 2009 - North Collier Regional Park, 15000 Livingston Road, Naples
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order ofthe Chair at 10:37 AM.
COLLIER COUNTY CLAM BAY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
(1~'
These Minutes approved by the Board/Committee on
as presented V or as amended
9<H- 69
16 , 1 --A '(1
August 27,2009
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
Fiala ~ ~~ODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Halas ,O1l.; N 1 Fl 'd
Henning L'_. apes, on a
Coyle V ,.., August 27,2009
Coletta "J(! / rl'
RECEIVED
SEP 2 9 2009
Board Of County Commissioners
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code
Enforcement Board, in and for the County Qf Collier, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government CQmplex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Gerald Lefebvre
Larry Dean
Nicolas Hemes (Alternate)
Kenneth Kelly
Edward Larsen
Lionel L'Esperance
Robert Kaufman
James Lavinski
Heriminio Ortega (Alternate)
ALSO PRESENT:
Heidi Ashton-CickQ, Assistant County Attorney
Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director
Jen Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist.
Misc. Corres:
Date: I D (2:1 I DC]"
Item#: (to T ( \)At-
Page 1
Copies to:
1611 A41
August 27,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Everyone ready?
I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County
meeting to order for August 27th, 2009.
NQtice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case
presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons
wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes,
unless the time is adjusted by the chairman.
All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to
observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the
court reporter can record all statements being made.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision Qf this bQard will
need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefQre may
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
which record includes the testimony and evidence on which the appeal
is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement
Board shall be resPQnsible for providing this record.
Roll call, please.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Kenneth Kelly?
MR. KELLY: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Robert Kaufman?
MR. KAUFMAN: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. James Lavinski?
MR. LA VINSKI: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. HeriminiQ Ortega?
MR. ORTEGA: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean?
MR. DEAN: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ed Larsen?
MR. LARSEN: Present.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance?
Page 2
161'.1 A4
August 27,2009
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Nicolas Hemes?
MR. HEMES: Here.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Changes tQ the agenda, please.
MS. WALDRON: We do have one hearing that will be moved
under stipulations, and that will be Item CA, BCC versus Gabino
Medina, CEB No. CESD200800l6l67.
Item C, hearings, number two, BCC versus Bruce G. Wood as
trust (sic) of Bruce G. Wood Revocable Trust, Case
CESD20080003740, is being withdrawn by the county.
Number five under hearings, BCC versus Fabian Hernandez,
Case CESD20090004l13, is being withdrawn by the county.
Under old business, Item B, motion fQr reductiQn of fines/liens,
number one, James C. and Sherry Marshall, CEB No. 2004-72, is
being withdrawn by the county.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other changes?
MS. WALDRON: (Shakes head negatively.)
MR. KELLY: Make it a motion we accept the agenda.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favQr?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
Page 3
AUguJ29 J~~} 4 ·
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: MQtion passes.
And since we do have a full board, the alternate members will
not be voting today, for the record.
Approval of the minutes for the July 23rd, 2009 hearing.
MR. DEAN: I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.
MR. KELL Y: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
And we'll move down to stipulations. BCC versus Gabino
Medina, CEB No. CESD20080016167.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: FQr the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier
County Code Enforcement.
Both parties have agreed into a stipulation.
Pay operational costs in the amount of$86.71 incurred in the
prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing.
Abate all violations by: Must apply fQr and obtain a Collier
County building permit or a demolition permit and request required
inspections to be performed and passed with a certificate of
completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of
$250 per day will be imposed.
Page 4
1611 A4
August 27,2009
ResPQndent must notify code enforcement within 24 hQUfs of
abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site
inspection to confirm cQmpliance.
That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county
may abate the violation and may use the assistance Qf the Collier
CQunty Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions Qfthe agreement and
all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Good morning.
MR. MEDINA: I'm okay with that, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, can YQU state your name,
please, for the record.
MR. MEDINA: Yes, Gabino Medina, Jr.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Have you done any work or
applied for permits since the signing of this order?
MR. MEDINA: No, sir. It was signed about two weeks ago.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, on the 4th of -- well, actually
-- yeah, the 4th of August.
MR. MEDINA: Right. But we are going to proceed to do so.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
Any questions of the bQard?
(No response.)
MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motiQn that we accept the stipulatiQn
as written.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KELLY: Second.
MR. LA VINSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Page 5
1 h 1'1 A 41
August "17, 2oh9
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. MEDINA: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much.
We're going to move on to hearings. And the first one will be
BCC versus Platinum Coast Financial Corp., CEB No.
CESD20080005688.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please?
MS. PASS: Pamela Pass. P-A-S-S.
MS. SORRELS: GQod morning, gentlemen. FQr the record,
Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement.
This is in reference to Case No. CESD20080005688, with the
violations of electrical conduit, wiring and outlets have been added
to/installed/replaced/removed throughout structure. Plumbing has been
added tQ for the addition of sinks and toilets. PartitiQn walls have been
demolished and rebuilt. A bar and stage have been built, and a loft has
been demolished.
All the above-mentioned construction has been started and/or
completed without first obtaining all required CQllier County building
permits.
Service -- proof of service was given on the 6th of March, 2009.
And I would like to present -- if you remember, gentlemen, we spoke
about this last month.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does Jennifer have to read in the
statement of violation, the case?
MS. WALDRON: (Nods head affirmatively.)
Page 6
16 I il A 4
August 27,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, ifYQU can do that, please.
MS. WALDRON: It's in reference to violation of ordinance
Collier County Laws, Chapter 22, Article 2, Section 22 to 26.B,
104.1.3.5, Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, Chapter 1, Section
105.1, Collier County Land Development Code, 2004-41, as amended,
Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), and
1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a).
Description of violation: Electrical conduit, wiring and outlets
have been added to, installed, replaced and removed thrQugh structure.
Plumbing has been added to for the addition of sinks and toilets.
Partition walls have been demolished and rebuilt. A bar and stage
have been built and a loft has been demolished. All the
above-mentioned construction has been started and/or completed
without first obtaining all required Collier County building permits.
Location/address where violation exists: 11150 Tamiami Trail
East, Naples, FIQrida, 34113. Folio 439000008.
Name and address of owner/person in charge Qfviolation
location: Platinum Coast Financial Corp., 961 Trail Terrace Drive,
Naples, Florida, 34103.
Date violation first observed: April 24th, 2008.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: March
6th, 2009.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 7th, 2009.
Date of reinspection: April 8th, 2009.
Results of reinspection: The violation remains.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Apologize for interrupting.
MS. SORRELS: No, I jumped the gun. Sorry about that.
As you remember, last month we discussed this and I presented
some pictures. I printed up some other pictures, just to refresh your
memory what we were looking at, so I'd like to enter Exhibit B. And
there's a total of six pictures.
MR. KELLY: I make a motion we accept the evidence.
Page 7
161~1 A4
August 27,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear --
MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MS. SORRELS: The pictures are just pretty much what was
described as work being done without permits; basically electrical,
plumbing and structural cQnstruction done without permits.
This would be the partition wall to the entrance to the wQmen's
restroom.
Some plumbing that was added to add sinks into the bar area and
to the men's restroom.
A partition wall that has been built in the men's restroom.
An AC unit that had been installed.
And some electrical that had been added as well.
Does that refresh your memory a little bit of what we saw last
month? Okay.
You guys had asked -- excuse me, the board had asked us to
basically ask the County Attorney for an interpretation.
Susan Istenes, the Director of Zoning, is one of the few people
that can do an interpretation of the Land Development Code. So we
first went to her and we asked her to do a interpretation of the code,
Page 8
16111 A4
August 27,2009
and particularly the wQrd develQpment.
And I'll put on the screen her e-mail correspondence to us with
the answer.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'd just like to correct for the record that
we had recommend that they work with the zoning staff to see if a
resolution could be accomplished.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: This is the property that is zoned
commercial -- or was zoned cQmmercial, went through a PUD. The
PUD is no longer sunsetted?
MS. SORRELS: That is correct, sir.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Right. I wasn't suggesting the County
Attorney's Office would issue an interpretation. I just wanted to clarify
that for the record.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to admit that into--
MS. SORRELS: Yes. The correspondence, yes.
MR. KELLY: I make a motion we accept that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a secQnd?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
MR. DEAN: I'll second the mQtion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
Page 9
16t 1 A4
August 27,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
I jumped the gun that time.
MS. SORRELS: I will just -- if you guys can read that, it's
probably better than listening to me stumble through it, so --
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Can it be focused a little better?
MR. DEAN: Yeah, I can't read it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's a little small.
MS. WALDRON: I'm trying to get it all in there for you guys.
MR. DEAN: Better.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Prior to -- did everyone finish
reading?
MR. LARSEN: I don't know ifthere's anything after number two
on the bottom Qf that?
MS. SORRELS: NQ.
MR. LARSEN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Prior to this being tended uses as a
bar/nightclub, I'm not sure exactly what, what was it before that?
MS. SORRELS: 1 would not have an answer fQr YQu. Mrs. Pass
would probably have one.
MS. PASS: It's -- for 15 years it's been a bar/restaurant.
And I would just like to remind you that this was a tenant that
hired -- had a contract, supposedly got permits. I mean, he didn't
purposely illegally do this work, he had a contract with a contractor
that turned out not tQ be legit.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
MR. KAUFMAN: Have you seen this--
MS. PASS: I have.
MR. KAUFMAN: -- interpretation?
MS. PASS: I have. And I went on the Collier County website
last night and looked at the Municipal code and the Florida Statutes,
and it differs to what they class development versus the way they're
interpreting. I really think an attorney needs to look at this.
Page 10
16 I_ 1 A 4 I
August 27, 2009
The way it states, develQpment is -- when the PUD sunset it said
no further development can take place, so therefore they wouldn't
issue me permits.
Development is a reconstruction/alteration of a size or material
change to the external appearance of a structure on land. And I don't
think -- I'm not reconstruction, I'm not changing, so I don't think I'd
fall in that development category.
MR. KAUFMAN: Would the county agree to back Ms. Pass as
far as getting the permits to do it, based on the e-mail?
MS. SORRELS: The way I have understood it and it's been
explained to me is the county would be willing to issue permits as a
demo permit. They would issue a partial demo permit which would
allow her to remove all the work that has been done without permits.
As for anything -- anything other would only allQw to be
maintenance of a building. So if she was doing something to maintain
the safety of the building, that would be allowable and they would
issue a permit for that as well, if the permit was required.
But as remodeling/alterations, they're considering that as
development and would not issue a permit for that.
MR. KAUFMAN: And this is different from the last meeting
that we had where they wouldn't issue any permits at all, as I recall.
MS. SORRELS: That is correct.
MS. PASS: That's correct.
MR. KAUFMAN: And does that meet with your satisfaction if
they would do that?
MS. PASS: If they would -- they've granted me the ability to get
demolition permits, but I still would like permits to be able to --
because when I pull that out, there's going to be work that needs tQ be
done if I'm going to be able to rent the building.
And all I'm asking is for just general, you know, to have the air
conditioner in there. They have a stage that they had taken down that
they had reconstructed. That's, you know, nothing major, but I don't
Page 11
1611 A4"
August 27,2009
see how YQU can selectively allow me a permit fQr one thing and nQt
another if it's development.
MR. KAUFMAN: Sort ofa restoration--
MS. PASS: Right.
MR, KAUFMAN: -- permit rather than a demolition permit. I
understand.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think there's two issues here. And
the question is, if it was operating as a business already, a restaurant
already, and there was modifications made tQ it, I think -- I feel that
that should be allowed under the current use. Now, we can't tell the
county -- we can only make a decision on if there is a violation that
she did not pull permits Qr that permits were not pulled. We can't
make a determinatiQn if the county should go ahead and issue new
permits. I think that's where we have to draw the line.
But I certainly think that the use -- intended use as a restaurant
was intended prior to -- the building was there prior to a PUD put in
place. So I think it should still be able to operate as a restaurant.
MR. KELLY: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. I would say
replacing an air conditioning unit would very much fall under the lines
of maintenance. Updating a bathroom again the same.
But I agree, it's nQt Qur place unfQrtunately in this venue to tell
the county what permits it can and can't issue. We have to determine
whether a violation exists. And under this -- what we've been cited,
what the respondent's been cited, I WQuld have to say yes, work has
been completed without permits.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. So I think we have to
distinguish between if work was done without permits, and I think that
has been proven.
I don't know what the feeling Qf the board is.
MR. KELLY: It's unfortunate, but that's what we're presented
and that's what we have to vote on.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
Page 12
16"''1A4
August 27,2009
MR. ORTEGA: I'm a little bit confused here. There's a PUD in
existence right now?
MS. PASS: It has sunset. So therefore the county took the stance
that it had no zoning and therefore couldn't issue a building permit.
MR. ORTEGA: Well, unless you're altering -- or you're adding
additional square footage Qr you're altering. For example, you might
have a room that was an office and maybe that requires 300 square
feet for people and all of a sudden you're Qpening that up to mQre
seating area, I can see how that can be impacted. But where YQU have
a PUD --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let's not confuse the two issues
here. The issue that we have to deal with is was there a permit pulled
for the work that was done. That's all we really -- that's our venue. We
cannot IQok at anything else.
MR. KAUFMAN: I think it's sort ofa Catch-22, however, that if
you go to pull a permit and they won't give YQU Qne, for us to find that
you're guilty of not pulling a permit is a little bit on the disingenuous
side. There's got to be some way that Solomon can come in here and
reconstruct the baby.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But work was already done, that's
the thing. It wasn't like she -- that a permit was tried to be pulled and
wasn't able. The work had already been done.
MS. PASS: Under the pretense that we had permits. I mean, it
was the tenants naivety to nQt realize that he didn't have permits, but
he had a contract that said the contractor was responsible for pulling
the permits.
MR. LARSEN: Isn't the owner ultimately responsible to ensure
that any work done on the premises is properly permitted?
MS. PASS: That I don't know.
MR. KELLY: I believe I speak for everyone on the board when I
say that we genuinely feel sorry for the situation that you're in. The
fact that you hired a contractor and he didn't live up to his obligation
Page 13
16 I ~~ A 4
August 27,2009
puts everybQdy in a bad situation here.
But the fact is we can only determine right or wrong on what
we're presented and what our venue allows us to. And in this case the
simple question is did work -- was work performed without a permit.
And that's as far as we can go. We can't gQ outside the scope of that.
MS. PASS: So where do I go next?
MR. LARSEN: We can't give advice.
MR. KELLY: It's our only hope that maybe county WQuld allow
you to cQntinue with thQse -- under the maintenance pretense. But
that's not for us to decide.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have any more that you
would like to --
MS. PASS: Well, I just feel that, YQU know, now this -- when he
tries -- if we can ever get a tenant in there, you're going to have to
meet new -- you know, you're no longer going to be grandfathered in.
So I'm sure this building isn't gQing tQ -- without permits is going tQ be
untenable. I mean, I've been almost a year and a half now unable to
rent this. It's just -- it doesn't seem fair.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I dQn't know if this is a question that
can be answered. I guess if the property's brought back to the Qriginal
state, then at that point it could be rentable again in its original state.
MS. SORRELS: Correct. For the violation to be abated it would
have to be returned to its original state before this case had been
opened and addressed.
MR. LARSEN: Right, but let's be careful here. I mean, can you
get a demolition permit, return it to its Qriginal state and not be
required to bring it up to current codes? So that's an issue that she was
correctly addressing there, and we've got to be careful, because
basically we don't want to make a pronouncement here that, you
know, further permits would not be required.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
MR. KAUFMAN: What would happen if this was -- and I hate
Page 14
161'1.A4
August 27,2009
to dQ it again -- postpQned for, let's say, I'm just trying to CQme up
with some sort of a solution. If it was postpQned for two months, three
months, whatever it is, and permits were pulled and you did get the
work resolved as far as the violation is concerned, when it would
come back to the board we'd be in a better positiQn to handle that
situation at that time.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, that's just like we could make
an Qrder that she has 90 days to pull the demo permits and -- I mean,
that would be in an order, we can do that.
MR. LARSEN: The first order Qfbusiness, of course, is tQ find
out -- determine whether or not a viQlatiQn exists. Then we can go into
what the remedies would be.
MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion, unfortunately, that a violation
exists.
MR. LARSEN: I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. KELLY: And then I agree with my cQlleague, I think we
should give ample time. Perhaps working with the building
department would allow the respondent to figure a way to get some of
these conditions approved as maintenance.
Page 15
16 h"~l A 4
August 27,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do YQU have a -- I think we should
give ample time. I would be inclined to give 120 to 180 days as a--
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If! could interject. The County
Attorney has requested this item be continued to the next meeting.
MR. LARSEN: Well, we've already had a vote, so I think that
that should have been brQught to our attention befQre we had the vote.
MS. PASS: Now you understand my frustration.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, can we stay the vote?
MR. LARSEN: It's already a matter Qfpublic record.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
MS. FLAGG: If! could interject--
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, the issue here -- okay, I've not
been involved in this matter, somebody else in Qur office is. And the
question is whether you've got to remodel. And the question is
whether the requirements that staff is requesting is appropriate. And
that's why we're asking for some time to continue this fQr 30 days.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's why we were here last month
and --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, I understand.
MS. FLAGG: Could I just offer, if you lQok towards the middle
Qf the paragraph, it says so for example if a demolition permit was
required to remove an existing building or a portion of an existing
building for life/safety or similar purposes, it would be okay to issue a
demo permit or other permits for structures in a preventative or
maintenance situation.
So I think that you're concerned about the maintenance aspect.
They're acknowledging for -- permits can be issued for that situation.
MR. LARSEN: Right. So if we give them 180 days to explQre
that opportunity, that's more than adequate enough time to determine
whether or not the county would actually issue a permit to this
landowner. And, you know, we can determine what to do ifit comes
back on our calendar at that time.
Page 16
1611 A 4
August 27,2009
MR. KELLY: I agree. I think this e-mail actually helps the
situation. As long as the respondent doesn't want to remodel and
change the interior of the structure. I think a lot of what we have seen
in photographs would probably be allowed.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: County attorney?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think if you gave a period Qftime to
give them sufficient time for corrective actiQn, you can proceed
forward and she can request an extension, if she needs to, for time.
MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we grant the 180 days in
order to pull the necessary demo permit to restore or get the building
back into the non-violation state.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And after six months or 180 days,
what is the fine?
MR. KAUFMAN: After that period of time, $100 a day fine for
each day the violation exists.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let's hold off, because county
attorney stepped out for a minute. If that's okay.
MS. WALDRON: Would the bQard like to see the formalized
recommendatiQn sheet, just for -- you can have it in your head.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we already came up with a
recommendation, so --
MR. LARSEN: That's fine. If you -- thank you very much.
MR. KAUFMAN: Well, if you just fill in the blanks, CQde
Enforcement Board orders the respondent to abate all operational costs
in the amount of -- and what are the --
MS. WALDRON: It's $88.14.
MR. KAUFMAN: The prQsecution of the case within 30 days.
Obtain all building permits, inspections, certificate of completion for
electrical, plumbing and structural additions/alterations mentioned
above -- this is the demo permit.
The fine will be $100, to fill in the blank there.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One hundred dQllars --
Page 17
Aug!sRJ, '~09 A 4
MR. KAUFMAN: Per day.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- for each day.
MR. KAUFMAN: Imposed for each day the violation remains.
Must notify code enforcement investigator when the violation
has been abated, et cetera.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think the cQunty attorney needs to
be in here, because she --
MR. KAUFMAN: Before we vote on it, yeah.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: She types everything in too, so --
correct?
Or I should say our board attorney, not of the cQunty.
What would you like? We're waiting for you.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Like we spoke, if you give him
180 days, I think that's sufficient time for the issue to be worked out.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Just to bring you up to speed,
since you have to write the Qrder, Mr. Kaufman is pretty much
following this format here that was put up on the screen. And it will be
180 days of this hearing; a fine of $100 a day will be imposed for each
day the violation remains; and the fees for --
MS. WALDRON: $88.14.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much, $88.14.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Great, Qkay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you understand what we --
MS. PASS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we have to have a second
from Mr. Kelly.
MR. KELLY: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
Page 18
161'l A4
August 27,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MS. SORRELS: Thank you, gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next hearing will be BCC
versus David E. Horton. And it's CEB No. CESD20080011966.
(Speaker was duly sWQrn.)
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of ordinance
Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section
1 0.02.06(B)(1)( a).
Description of violation: Addition to the rear of the home with
no permits.
Location/address where violation exists: 2128 55th Street
Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio 36379480008.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
IQcation: David E. HQrton, 2128 55th Street Southwest, Naples,
Florida, 34116.
Date violatiQn first observed: September 8th, 2008.
Date owner/persQn in charge given Notice of Violation: October
9th, 2008.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: NQvember 8th,
2008.
Date of reinspection: July 15th, 2009.
Results of the reinspection is that the viQlatiQn remains.
The notice of hearing was sent out certified mail and it was
signed for on April 14th. And property and courthouse were also
posted.
Page 19
16 PI A 4
August 27,2009
MR. KELLY: I have an administrative question real quick.
The request for hearing that you just read and the original NOV
have different items on them. The one that we're getting for today has
just the violation of an addition tQ the rear of the home with no
permits.
However, the Notice of Violation that Investigator Paul served
says the permits for a garage conversion and a reapp. for a permit for
replacing a shingle roof. Are all of those included in this today?
MS. WALDRON: It's Qnly the violation that I read. The other
things have been corrected.
MR. KELLY: Okay, great, thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the respondent's not here; is
that correct?
MR. PAUL: No, he's not.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, sir.
MR. PAUL: For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code
Enforcement Investigator.
This is in reference to Case No. CESD20080011966.
This is addition ofa lanai to the rear of the property at 2128 55th
Street Southwest.
I'd like to present evidence in the following exhibits. B-1 and
C-l.
MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion that we accept the exhibits.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. LA VINSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
Page 20
A!g~stl:f2o~ 4
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. PAUL: And as you'll see, the first picture is a picture of the
lanai in the rear of the home.
MR. KAUFMAN: May I ask a question on that picture?
MR. PAUL: Yes.
MR. KAUFMAN: I can't really see it well. Is it just the portion
that is dirt and sand, or is it all the way to the Qther end of the hQuse?
MR. PAUL: It's all the way tQ the Qther end of the house.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay.
MR. PAUL: And this is the photograph of the survey that was
done in 1990. As you can see by the survey, there is no lanai in the
back of the house.
All right, this case began on 9/8 of2008. I originally had gotten
a complaint in regards to a garage conversiQn. Someone had actually
made a complaint to our Qffice in regards to that.
I was out on the property, I sPQke tQ Mr. David Horton and I
explained tQ him that I was on-site doing research in regards to his
garage. I told him I would research the records and I'd pull all the files
and get back to him.
On 10/9, after researching, I had found there was numerous
violations at the property, which I had attempted to cite him for. But
he had refused to sign the Notice of Violation. But I did hand it to him
and I completed an affidavit of service.
On 11/18 of 2008, after research I fQund that he had not obtained
any permits for the numerous violations that I had cited him for.
On 12/7, same thing. Nothing -- there was no change; he still
hadn't obtained any permits.
Page 21
l~ I 'f A4
August21, ib09
I had several phone conversatiQns with him. And eventually we
had set up a meeting with our permitting department to see if we could
resolve most of these issues.
On 1/27 of2009, he came into the office and we were able to
resQlve the garage -- the garage conversion issue. But with the reroof
and the other permits, he was going to have to come in and get permits
for those.
Eventually he did get permits for the other violations and he did
get those COs; COs for those. The only thing he had left over was the
lanai. After -- time after time I spoke with him, and he never obtained
the permits.
Last conversation I had with the owner, on 6/22 of2009, I
explained to him that he had to have the permits by the end of that
week or I would prep the case for CEB. Owner had till July 3rd.
On July 15th, after research, found that the violation remained,
so I prepped the case for CEB.
On 7/31 of 2009 I posted the notice of hearing at the property
and the courthouse.
Soon after he did apply for permits, but they're still in applied
status. And he still doesn't have permits till today.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do you know the status of a lanai, if it's
been progressed any further than what we've seen in the pictures?
MR. PAUL: I believe it's the same. I haven't been out to the site.
He did say he had a screening company come out and do some
adjustments to the lanai so that he was able to get permits. Because I
know at one point it wasn't up to cQde and that's why they wouldn't
give him a permit for it. But even with the changes, he never went
down and got a permit.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: No more concrete -- or no concrete has
been poured in the floor?
MR. PAUL: Not that I know of.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you.
Page 22
161i A4
August 27,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questiQns?
MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we find a
violation exists.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. LA VINSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussiQn?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELL Y: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: MQtiQn passes.
MR. PAUL: The county asks that the owner pay the operational
CQst in the amount of $87 incurred in the prosecution of this case;
abate all violations by: Respondent's required to Qbtain any and all
permits as required by Collier County for any and all additions and
alterations to the residence; or obtain a demolition permit fQr removal
of all unpermitted additions to this property and obtain all required
inspections/certificates of cQmpletiQn within "X" amount Qf days of
this hearing or be fined "X" amount of dollars fQr each day the
violation remains unabated.
If the respondents fail 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 respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours
of abatement.
Page 23
161' 1 A 4
August 27,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Anyone like to make a mQtion?
MR. HEMES: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure.
MR. HEMES: Do we have any idea what the status of the CO
is?
MR. PAUL: On the lanai?
MR. HEMES: Yes.
MR. PAUL: He doesn't have a CO. He doesn't even have the
permit issued yet.
MR. HEMES: Okay, when did he apply for the permit?
MR. PAUL: He applied for the permit on 7/20 of '09. And it was
finally approved yesterday. It had been rejected sometime in between
there.
MR. LARSEN: All right, so let's give the gentleman 60 days.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kelly, you have a question?
MR. KELLY: Yeah, Investigator Paul, do you know if the
additions and renQvatiQns were actually perfQrmed by Mr. Horton, or
were they there when he bought it in 2005?
MR. PAUL: He said they was there when he purchased it.
MR. KELLY: I'd say 90 days. Just because he is working. He
took care of the other two violations. The permit was finally approved
for pickup just yesterday.
MR. LARSEN: Ninety days is fine with me.
Well, then I give him $100 a day for every day the viQlatiQn
remains unabated thereafter.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a secQnd?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second, Kaufman.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
Page 24
16"1 A4
August 27,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. PAUL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you.
We'll be moving on to motion for impositiQn of fines. And the
first one would be BCC versus Ivan and Marjorie Bloom and Charles
T. Kennedy.
And you'll see there was a package that was put Qn our -- in front
of us this morning. And the only change is where it says the
respondent has complied with CEB orders as of July 29th, 2009.
The original one said the respondent has complied with CEB
orders as of! think it was April 23rd, 2009, which was our last
meeting which -- or not our last meeting, our meeting in April when
this case came in front of us, and that was incorrect. So that's why the
package is in front of us.
Could we have the parties sworn in, please.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
THE COURT REPORTER: May have I your name, please.
MR. BLOOM: Ivan Bloom. B-L-O-O-M.
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation Collier
County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended,
Sections 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a), 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )( e), and
1 0.02.06(B)(1)( e )(i).
Location 0[vio1ation: 660 94th Avenue North, Naples, Florida.
Folio 62707640002.
Description of violation: Permit No. 86-2172 for a room addition
Page 25
16 PI A 4
August 27,2009
was expired withQut obtaining all the inspections and certificate of
completion.
On April 23rd, 2009 the Code Enforcement Board issued a
finding Qf fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was
found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct
the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4449, Page
2449 for more information.
The respondent has cQmplied with the Code Enforcement Board
orders as Qf July 29th, 2009.
The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a
lien for fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between June
23rd, 2009 to July 29th, 2009, 37 days, for the tQtal of $7,400.
Operational CQsts of 87.29 have been paid. The total recommended
lien amount is $7,400.
MR. LARSEN: Just a clarification. Order item number seven,
the operational costs have been paid?
MS. WALDRON: They were paid today.
MR. LARSEN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Why would you like a reduction?
MR. BLOOM: Yes, I would like a reductiQn. It's already cost me
over $4,300 to get everything in shape the way it was supposed to be.
And it's not as if we were trying to avoid anything. We bought
the house and all those code violations existed since sometime in
1990. And we had no -- we had no idea. And believe me, if it had
existed earlier, we would have taken care Qf it earlier.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have they been diligent in trying to
get this issue taken care of?
MR. MUSSE: For the record, Jonathan Musse, Collier County
Code Enforcement.
They have been excellent. Because it took a little longer than
expected.
MR. LARSEN: Make a motion to abate the fine.
Page 26
161'1 A4
August 27,2009
MR. KAUFMAN: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(NQ response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. BLOOM: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be BCC versus AMG
Properties, Inc., CEB No. 2007090454.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference tQ violation of Collier
County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended,
SectiQn 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a), and 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( e )(i).
LQcation of violation: 3831 Arnold Avenue, Naples, Florida.
Folio 00278360006.
Description of violation: Construction/additions/remodeling
done without proper permits.
On June 26th, 2008 the Code Enforcement BQard issued a
finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was
found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct
the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4376, Page
0285 for more information.
The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement
Board orders as of August 27th, 2009.
Page 27
16 Ill' A4
August 27, 2009
The cQunty's recQmmendation is tQ issue an Qrder impQsing a
lien for fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between October
25th, 2008 to August 27th, 2009, 307 days, for the total of$61,400.
Fines continue to accrue.
Operational --
MR. KAUFMAN: Can you repeat that number again, please.
MS. WALDRON: 61,400.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you.
MS. WALDRON: Operational costs of $502.49 have nQt been
paid.
The county's recQmmendation is to issue an order imposing a
lien in the amount of $61,902.49.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Please state your name fQr the
record.
MR. SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, CQllier County
Code Enforcement.
Today here we have before you their engineer. And
unfortunately I don't know if you remember this property or not, it
was a property that had an addition in the back and they didn't know if
the setbacks were -- they could have the addition of what they needed.
And this has been just a very long process for them trying tQ get
through the permitting process with rejections, additions.
They have been diligent in trying to get permits and trying to get
things issued. I'll let their engineer speak for them and let you know,
but they have been very diligent in trying to abate this viQlation. It just
has been very, very time consuming.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you can please state your name
for the record.
MR. GRILL: My name is Ken Grill. G-R-I-L-L.
And we have prepared a set of signed and sealed drawings to
take care of the issues on the property. And we've had a couple--
several conversations with the building department and some meetings
Page 28
1611 A4
August 27,2009
to make sure what we've submitted already is good.
And currently the -- I believe the zoning is looking at a couple of
things on the property. And -- but we filed Qur notice of
commencement and it's been recorded and the applications are turned
in. So we're -- we feel confident we're pretty much there. Y QU know,
just trying to get the permitting part stuff started, so --
MR. LARSEN: How come the operational costs weren't paid?
MR. GRILL: Pardon me?
MR. LARSEN: How CQme the operational costs weren't paid?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: He's the engineer, so --
MR. LARSEN: Well, he's here as a representative of the owner.
MR. SNOW: Yes, you have to get up.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if you can -- we're going to
need to have you sworn in and speak into the mic, please.
(Mr. Garcia was duly sworn.)
MR. GARCIA: Jose Garcia. And I'm the owner of AMG
Properties.
I haven't got a bill for the 500 some dollars. At least that's what
my office says.
MR. SNOW: Mr. Garcia, would you be willing to pay that
today?
MS. GARCIA: Sure.
MR. LARSEN: All right, is the cQunty going to ask for a
continuance of this matter?
MR. SNOW: We would prefer that the violation is abated before
anything is impQsed and decided. The engineer, I was discussing with
him a time frame. And if he would like to relay that to the board, we
would like to give them. Because it doesn't make any sense to impose
anything, the violation is not abated. I understand about the health and
safety issue.
MR. LARSEN: That's why I was asking about the operational
cost. Because we're reluctant to give the continuances for an
Page 29
AUgut~,I~~9 A 4
abatement if the operational costs aren't paid. If they're willing to pay
it today and they've got a time line, we'd like to entertain that.
MS. WALDRON: In could make a comment tQO. I know that
the board has previously in the past at this point granted them an
extension of time in order to complete what they need to complete
without fines running at all.
MR. KELL Y: Well, procedurally we're not presented with an
extension of time, we're presented with imposition of fines. So if the
county wants to withdraw this and then enter a continuance later,
maybe we'll entertain that.
MR. LARSEN: I think that procedurally that's the more CQrrect
way to gQ about it.
MR. KELLY: We can't -- I mean, we have to decide on this.
And I'm saying impose them, because the violation's not been abated
yet.
MR. LARSEN: What's your time line, sir?
MR. GRILL: We feel as if the permitting will wrap up in about
90 days. And Qur construction is going to last us about 90 days. SQ
probably worst case about six months for CO, for completion.
MR. LARSEN: That's a long time in light of what's happened.
I mean, how does the county feel about that?
MR. SNOW: The county wishes the violation to be abated, sir.
We can always bring him back to impose.
MR. KELLY: The county would have to withdraw it --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
MR. KELL Y: -- or we're going to vote on it.
MR. SNOW: We'd like to withdraw right now and bring them
back at a time -- once they have abated the violation, we'll bring them
back befQre you.
MR. LARSEN: Predicated on their payment of the operational
cost?
MR. SNOW: Today, yes, sir.
Page 30
161 ai, A 4
August 27,2009
MR. KELLY: I make a mQtion we amend the agenda to have
this removed from the --
MR. LARSEN: I second that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
MR. SNOW: We thank the board.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
Next case will be BCC versus Mark Goodman. CEB NQ.
CESD20080006858.
(Speakers were duly sWQrn.)
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have YQUf name, please and
spelling?
MR. BOYNTON: Albert Boynton. B-O-Y-N-T-O-N.
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation Collier
County CQde of Laws, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building
Regulations, Article 2, Florida Building Code, adQption and
amendment Qfthe Florida Building Code, Sections 22 to 26.B,
104.1.3.5; Florida Building Code 2004 edition, Chapter 1, Sections
105.1,22 to 26.B. 104.1.3.5.
Location of violation: 1348 Highlands Drive, Naples, Florida.
Folio 29782200002.
Description of violation: Prohibited activities prior to permit
Page 31
1611 A4
August 27,2009
issuance; permit applicatiQn when required; improvement of property
prior to issuance of building permit.
On February 26th, 2009, the Code Enforcement Board issued a
finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was
found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct
the violation. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4434, Page
1379 for more information.
The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board
orders as of August 25th, 2009.
The county's recommendation is to issue an order impQsing lien
fQr fines at the rate of $200 per day fQr the period between June 28th,
2009 to August 25th, 2009, 59 days, for the total of$11,800.
Operational costs of $88.14 have not been paid.
The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a
lien for the total of$11,888.14.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Your relationship to Mr. Goodman?
MR. BOYNTON: I'm the next door neighbor.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. BOYNTON: He's out of state.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has he given YQU the ability to be
his representative today?
MR. BOYNTON: He told me to come here and bring this. That's
all I know. Which is the CO.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Could you state in your microphone?
MR. KELLY: Sorry, I was just talking to the Chair.
I believe it's in our rules that a representative has to have a sworn
statement that the respondent gives a person authority to speak on
their behalf. And I was just suggesting that perhaps the gentleman
could speak as perhaps just a witness to the case so we could still hear
testimony and ask questions.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think based on the testimony you've
had today, that that would be an appropriate way to handle it.
Page 32
161 fl A4
August 27,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right.
MR. LARSEN: Code enforcement official, what's the status of
the case?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's been complied with.
MR. MARTINDALE: It's -- I'm sorry, Investigator RQn
Martindale, Collier County Code Enforcement Director.
The case is -- the permit was CO'd the 25th, day before
yesterday. So our case is done with.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How diligent has he been in getting
the permit and so fQrth?
MR. MARTINDALE: Pretty good. He's been in and out of state
quite often, sQmetimes country.
This gentleman here advised me that they've had some financial
difficulties.
He initially applied for the permit Qn 4/20 of this year. It wasn't
approved until 6/29. And as I just said, it was CO'd on the 25th, after
the fact, permits.
MR. LARSEN: I'm sorry, it was -- the permit was granted,
issued on what date?
MR. MARTINDALE: It was actually approved on 6/29.
MR. LARSEN: 6/29.
MR. MARTINDALE: Correct.
MR. KELLY: Given the fact that the permit wasn't even
approved until after the time frame we granted, I suggest we abate the
fines.
MR. LARSEN: I second that mQtion.
MR. KELL Y : Well, we're going to have tQ impose the op. costs,
though.
MR. KAUFMAN: Before you do it, are you prepared to pay the
$88.14 for the respondent today?
MR. BOYNTON: Would you accept cash?
MS. WALDRON: (Shakes head negatively.)
Page 33
16 PI A4
August 27,2009
MR. DEAN: That's nQt American.
MR. BOYNTON: You're kidding me.
MR. LARSEN: All right. Well, we can make it predicated upon
payment of the operational cost within the next lO days. We'll abate
the fines cQnditionally.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KELL Y: I'll secQnd that. That sounds good.
MR. DEAN: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. LARSEN: You understand, sir, he's got to pay the $88.14
within the next lO days to the county; otherwise the fines are in effect.
If they pay, then the fines are abated, means they're waived, and go
away.
MR. BOYNTON: Where do I go to pay it?
MR. LARSEN: Mr. Martindale will help you out with it.
MR. DEAN: Is it true you can't take cash?
MR. MARTINDALE: I can't take anything, sir.
MR. DEAN: I didn't mean it that way, but--
MR. MARTINDALE: I understand.
MS. FLAGG: He can go down to CDES and they'll assist him--
Page 34
16 1'1 A 4
August 27, 2009
MR. MARTINDALE: Yes.
MS. FLAGG: -- at the cashier's office.
MR. MARTINDALE: I'll explain it to the gentleman.
MR. DEAN: Okay, gQod. Thank you.
MR. MARTINDALE: Thank you, gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be BCC versus
Joseph FeriQ Francois. CEB No. 2006-52.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have YQUf names, please?
MR. BRUGGER: My name is John Brugger. I'm an attorney
who's been representing Dr. Francois through this.
THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell your last name.
MR. BRUGGER: B-R-U-G-G-E-R.
DR. FRANCOIS: Joseph Francois.
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference tQ Collier County
Ordinance 2004-58, the Housing Code, Section 11.
Location of violation: 125 Boston Avenue, Immokalee, Florida.
Folio 2558032007.
Description of violation: A structure that has been severely
damaged by fire and now has been designated as a hazardous building
by the fire inspector.
On October 26th, 2006, the Code Enforcement BQard issued a
finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was
found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct
the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4325, Page
2991 for more information.
The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board
orders as of December 8th, 2008.
The county's recommendatiQn is to issue an Qrder imposing a
lien for fines at a rate of $250 per day for the period between May
30th, 2008 to December 8th, 2008, 192 days, for the total of $48,000.
Operational costs of $319.79 have not been paid. The total
Page 35
16 PI A 4
August 27,2009
recommended lien amount it is $48,319.79.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
MR. BRUGGER: Gentlemen, Dr. Francois submitted an
application for a building permit with Collier County in -- was it
actually applied in 2006 or in 20077 When was the original permit?
DR. FRANCOIS: 2006.
MR. BRUGGER: In 2006.
He received an approval, as to the best of my knowledge, on
every one of the reviewers except when it got to an SDP.
This property was located at the comer of First Street and
Boston in Immokalee. The roof had been severely damaged by fire,
but the rest of the structure appeared to be sound.
He had gone and retained an engineer from Labelle who did a
review of the property and felt that structurally the walls and slab were
sound and the building could be restored. So Dr. Francois submitted
for the building permit.
And as I said, all the boxes for the reviewers were approved
except they found that the prQperty had never had an SDP on it. It had
been built many years before. I don't -- do you know when it was
originally built -- in the Fifties Qr Sixties -- without an SDP. SQ the
cQunty required an SDP application as part of the building permit
approval process.
He retained and attorney -- or not an attorney -- an engineer at
the cost of$26,000 to prepare the SDP. And there were multiple
delays in submitting.
We had a hearing in October of2007, I believe, requesting an
extension of time to bring the building into compliance. The Code
Enforcement Board granted us an extension through May 29th, 2008.
And we stayed on top of Qur engineer. He submitted the SDP
application on February 11th, 2008, about three months before we
were due on the May 29th date.
The county was reviewing it. It was working through the
Page 36
16 I ~1 A 4
August 27,2009
process. We had multiple meetings with the cQunty to get the SDP
approval. And then about April of 2008 we were informed that
because the building was located in a newly established Immokalee
overlay district, we had to provide drawings showing what the exterior
of the building was going to look like and the color of the building.
Those had to be submitted as part of the SDP process.
He retained an architect who took 45, 60 days to get the
drawings done. Those were submitted to the county. And at about this
time we began working with Joe Schmitt and Ross Gochenaur at the
county on approval of the building plan with the modification.
I was concerned abQut the timing of what was happening
because I was aware of the May 29th date.
I submitted a letter to Marlene Stewart at the Code Enforcement
Board in July. In talking to county staff, I was assured YQu're wQrking
on this diligently, dQn't be concerned.
I became concerned in July and submitted a request for a
hearing, just to grant an extensiQn, because we cQntinued tQ wQrk on
this. I was actually granted an extension -- or granted a hearing for
August 22nd.
During the process, with multiple meetings with Mr. Schmitt and
Mr. Gochenaur, we received information that the original building
permit applicatiQn had been lost at the cQunty. Again, we thought we
were in the approval process where all we had tQ dQ was get Qur SDP
approved and Qur building application would then be approved, he
could reconstruct the building and continue to use it where it was
located.
They ultimately -- they asked us if we had copies of the
application. We provided copies. And in August 14th, I've got an
e-mail here frQm Mr. Schmitt informing me that they located the file.
Only they now determined that the permit had -- the application had
expired. It had been sitting there too long while the SDP process was
being reviewed.
Page 37
16 I 1 A 4
August 27,2009
We had multiple meetings in which it was determined because
the existing permit had expired, we now had to -- the original permit
was made under a 2001 building code. Because of the hurricanes the
building code was updated and we were now informed we had to
make an application under the 2004 building code for remodeling the
building and be brought into compliance with the new structural
requirements.
Wernet with engineers and determined -- Dr. Francois had
determined that the value of the existing building with the CQncrete
and everything in place was worth about $80,000 with the concrete
walls. And again, we had the Labelle engineer's certification that the
existing structure was sound.
But now to bring it into the new building code requirements
would have required new structural steel being inserted within the
walls, that -- and things that didn't exist.
Again, we continued meeting with the county. It was finally
determined in about September Qr October that the only way that the
building could be remodeled as it existed would be to come before the
board of commissioners and seek some type of variance, and it was
unlikely that that would be granted.
Ultimately Dr. Francois finally just threw up his hands and had
the building demolished and tom down. He was trying to save the cost
of it.
And again, I've gQt multiple communicatiQns where we were
meeting with Mr. Schmitt.
I was advised by county staff tQ just cancel the hearing, the new
hearing I had scheduled in August 22nd of2009 (sic) requesting
another extension, because they knew we were working on the process
and there would be no problems. So I ultimately canceled that.
I've got a copy of my notice here of the August 22nd, 2008
hearing where I was going to request an additional extension, and I
was assured I didn't need that.
Page 38
161 t~' A4
August 27,2009
So again, I think it was just facts and circumstances that did him
in. He was trying to save the building, found out the permit expired,
found out the old SDP was no good and ultimately he's had to retain
the engineer to create a new SDP.
The reason for the delay between the September realization that
it had to be tom down and whether we sought a variation from the
county commission was because this property happens to have three
front -- they determined it has three front streets, which means he's got
three different setbacks to deal with. There's a major thoroughfare on
three sides of it. So it was whether or not he tore it down or tried to get
the commissioners to allow him to save it. And ultimately it was tom
down and I think it was CO'd in December of 2008.
MR. LARSEN: Counsel, has he paid his operational costs?
DR. FRANCOIS: There was a fee that I paid. I don't remember,
probably two or three years ago. I don't know if this is what you're
talking about.
MS. WALDRON: Operational costs have not been paid on this
case.
MR. LARSEN: There's operational cost of$318.79.
DR. FRANCOIS: I'm not aware of that.
MR. LARSEN: Are you in position to pay that today?
DR. FRANCOIS: Yeah, I can write a check.
MR. LARSEN: All right. Mr. LetQumeau, what's your position?
MR. LETOURNEAU: Everything he said was pretty much true,
that's my position.
MR. LARSEN: So the building no longer exists?
MR. LETOURNEAU: Building no lQnger exists. And he had a
lot of hurdles to overcome in this whole process.
MR. LARSEN: I make a motion to abate the fine.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
Page 39
16 PI A 4
August 27,2009
(No resPQnse.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: MotiQn passes.
MR. LARSEN: Got to pay the operational cost tQday.
DR. FRANCOIS: Thank you.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, for the next three cases on our
impositiQn of fines, there is a representative from the bank on their
way, SQ I don't know if you'd like to take a break to --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let's take a break.
MS. WALDRON: -- give them a little additional time to get
here.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes.
MR. LARSEN: And that would be Klemco, Klemco and
Empire?
MS. WALDRON: Correct.
MR. DEAN: Is it all one?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, it's all in one.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I call the Code Enforcement Board
meeting back tQ order. And next case -- are we going to put all these
cases together?
MS. WALDRON: Yeah, we can lump them together and I'll just
give the details of each one, if you'd like --
Page 40
16/1 A4
August 27,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. And then we'll VQte
individually.
MS. WALDRON: Right.
In reference to BCC versus Klemco, LLC, Case
CESD20090002071, the abatement costs, the cQunty abatement costs
have been paid in this case and the operational CQsts have been paid in
this case as well. So the county is nQt recommending that we issue a
lien. We just want to get on the record that those costs have been paid.
And then alsQ for BCC versus Klemco, LLC,
CESD20090002075 is the same situation. Abatement costs have been
paid, operational costs have been paid. The cQunty is not asking to
impose a lien on this case either.
MR. LARSEN: So they paid the $44,528?
MS. WALDRON: Correct.
MR. KAUFMAN: They paid once or twice?
MS. WALDRON: It was a total abatement cost that was split in
half for each case.
MR. LARSEN: Okay.
MS. WALDRON: So it was 80 some thousand dollars.
MR. KAUFMAN: So they did pay it twice, 44 on each Qne.
MS. WALDRON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And moving on to Empire
Developers.
MS. WALDRON: Okay, I'll read the -- I will read the statement
for this one. Abbreviated.
The fines at the rate of$1O per day per acre, 28.6, for the period
between November 27th, 2008 and July 7th, 2009, for the total of
$63,778. And fines at the rate of$1O per day per acre, 18 acres, for the
period between November 27th, 2008 to July 7th, 2009, 223 days, for
the total of$40,140. For a total amount of$103,918.
This case follows with the other two cases as well. And they had
paid the abatement costs, so the county is recommending that the lien
Page 41
161,1 A4
August 27,2009
also not be imposed on this case.
MR. LARSEN: All right. So --
MS. WALDRON: Yeah, waive the remaining fines on this case.
There was a companion case to this one as well that has been
brought to the BCC. The BCC has waived those fines as well.
MR. LARSEN: All right. So what we want to do is make a
motion that the Board of County Commissioners versus Klemco -- I
would withdraw my motion.
MR. LETOURNEAU: This is the representative for Fifth Third.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you could be on the mic, please.
MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, sir.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name for the
record.
MS. ZAYAS: Cilia. C-I-L-I-A. Last name Zayas. Z-A- Y-A-S.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you're representative for?
MS. ZAYAS: For Fifth Third Bank.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
MR. LARSEN: Perhaps we should hear from the young lady, if
she has any CQmments.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: She dQesn't know what's already
transpired.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
MR. LETOURNEAU: I was under -- fQr the record, Jeff
LetQurneau, Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor.
I was on the phone with Cilia this morning, advising her to come
down here as a representative of Fifth Third. They're actually the
people that paid for the abatement because they have interest in this
property. They're probably gQing to be taking it Qver, because it is in
the foreclosure status still. And that's basically why I told her to come
down here this morning, just to verify that information with the board.
MR. LARSEN: All right, young lady, you're in time for my
Page 42
16/1 A4
August 27, 2009
mQtion.
Board of County Commissioners versus Klemco, LLC,
Department No. CESD2009000 --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's regarding Empire.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Empire.
MR. LARSEN: I'm starting with Klemco.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We already took care of those.
MR. LARSEN : Well, there wasn't a motion to --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we need a motion?
MS. WALDRON: We don't need a motion because the county
isn't recommending the lien be imposed.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. Because I was just going to make a
motion to dismiss.
MS. WALDRON: Just the last one we do need a motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So Mr. Larsen, you could go ahead
and do that Qne.
MR. LARSEN: Board of County Commissioners versus Empire
Development Group, Department No. CESD20080014496. Request
for imposition of fines.
Now, the operational costs have been paid on that?
MS. WALDRON: (Nods head affirmatively.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And so has the abate amount?
MS. WALDRON: Yeah, the abate amount was applied to the
other cases, but this case is a companion case as well.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. So there's no need fQr an imposition.
MS. WALDRON: Correct.
MR. LARSEN: So we're just doing the same with the other two
then, making a motion that basically the request for an imposition of
fine be denied.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, I don't know if it's denied, but
MS. WALDRON: You just have to -- we have to state on the
Page 43
161'1 A4
August 27, 2009
record the fines will nQt be imposed.
MR. LARSEN: Fines will not be imposed. The request by the
county is denied.
MR. KELLY: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: You win.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just to let you know, we did recess
for about 20 minutes, 25 minutes to see that you're here. So we did
wait, but we went forward anyway.
MS. ZAYAS: I apologize for not being here earlier.
But I appreciate our relationship with the county, so thank you.
MR. KAUFMAN: You did well.
MR. LARSEN: I still don't see the difference between what we
did on Empire and what we did on Klemco.
MS. WALDRON: I can give you some light on that.
There were actually daily fines accruing for the Empire
DevelQpers and there were nQt fQr the other twQ cases.
MR. LARSEN: Why not?
MS. WALDRON: Because it wasn't in your order. You gave the
county the authority to abate and not impose fines.
Page 44
16/.t A4
August 27,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, that's right.
MR. LARSEN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Because Empire was prior to --
MS. WALDRON: Right.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- Klemco. And then Klemco took
possession, or actually --
MR. LARSEN: Right, it's the successor in interest.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I understand.
The next thing is reports. Do we have any reports?
MR. LARSEN : Well, I have a new business. DQ you want to
report on it?
I won't be able to make the September meeting because I have to
try a case in N ew York.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I will not be here either. Anyone
else that's not going to be able to attend next month?
MR. HEMES: I won't be here. I'll be in jolly old England.
MR. DEAN: SQ is Ken gQing to sit by himself?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have enough board members.
We have currently six members. So if that changes or if we need a
member, I can adjust my schedule, but I do have an important meeting
that I would like to attend.
MR. DEAN: It's your honeymoon, we don't want tQ mess with
that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, no, honeymoon is a few days
later.
MR. LARSEN: Sorry, dear.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, let's get back to the
meeting.
Wow. All right, reports, please?
MS. FLAGG: Reports. Diane Flagg, Director of Code
Enforcement.
I just wanted to update you all that as of August 23rd, we've
Page 45
16 I tl A 4
August 27,2009
received 951 code cases that involved foreclosed properties that are
vacant in Collier County. Of those 951, the banks have abated 418 of
those cases at no cost to the county, and the banks have spent
$431,200 to abate the violations, the code violations. f
This goes into the Blight Prevention Program that we've been
working with the community on. One arm of that Blight Prevention
Program is seeking voluntary compliance by the banks in the lis
pendens status. So long before the bank ever takes title tQ the property,
they're taking interest in the property and making sure that blight
doesn't occur in Collier County.
Another arm of the Blight Prevention Program is the community
task force meetings. There are, as you know, five community task
forces throughout Collier County. They continue to meet monthly.
And through the community task forces, comprised of multiple
agencies, the sheriffs office, utilities, civic associations, homeowners
associations and code enforcement, code enforcement continues to
have events where they go out and meet and greet the community
members, they provide them information about how to abate code
violations, they assist them in abating code violations if there is a case
brought forward.
And they're doing quite a few what we call community cleanups.
The community task force teams are going out, setting up a location.
In one case they filled five dumpsters with discarded tires. So the
community members are able to get rid of all the trash and debris and
discarded items in their community at no cost.
We have the dumpsters out there in conjunction with the utilities
division. They bring the dumpsters out, we fill -- we had a cleanup in
East Naples. They filled 10 dumpsters full of debris. And then all that
debris was dumped at nQ cost to the community members. So these
community cleanups have become very popular with our community.
And your code enforcement investigators are out there slinging tires
and refrigerators and microwaves and whatever else to get the
Page 46
16 , ;1
August 27,2009
Ab.
,
cQmmunity cleaned up to make sure we don't have blight.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further comments or questions?
MR. LA VINSKI: I have one question for Diane.
Did you say a while back that you have some effort underway to
help prevent these people from buying homes that have violations that
they don't supposedly know about?
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir, and I appreciate you bringing that up.
We've been working -- the Board of County Commissioners
passed a motion of direction to -- for NABOR and CBIA to develop
an ordinance requiring mandatQry inspection of vacant and foreclosed
homes. That ordinance is scheduled to come back to the BCC for
review of the proposed draft. It will still need to be advertised
following that.
But it's scheduled to come back to the BCC on September 29th
at the regularly scheduled BCC meeting.
MR. LA VINSKI: Excellent.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other comments from the
board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next meeting will be September
24th, 2009.
Do I have a motion to adjourn --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, I do have a quick comment.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'd just like to say that I am sensing a
little bit of frustration by the board. And I just want you all to know
that if there are items that are going forward that I'm uncQmfortable
with, that there might be some clarification or something that's
needed, it's necessary that we do follow up Qn that, because I want to
make sure that we don't expose the county to -- or the board to
litigation.
As you know, I represent you all and Mr. Wright represents the
Page 47
161'1 A4
August 27,2009
Code EnfQrcement Board. And we've established a Chinese wall. SQ
the information that's shared with the code board and Jeff doesn't
come to me until the meeting, just like it does to all of you.
So there will from time to time, because the way this is
structured, be some areas that might need some clarification. And just
ask that you bear with us as we proceed forward. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You know, maybe if we do come up
with a similar case that we had today, maybe we can recess that case
or put it in hold and then come back when you have an answer so we
dQn't make a decision without YQu.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's one option. And I don't think it's
going to occur that frequent. But from time to time there will be a
matter and I just wanted to explain so you understood the setup.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, any other comments? Any
comments from the board or thoughts?
MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much.
Page 48
161,1 A4
August 27,2009
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:39 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD
\(0(' kQ 11 MM, \4i/r ) VI (<,
These minutes approved by the board on
presented .; or as corrected .
ct(Z.4{09
as
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by
Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 49
RECEIVED
SEP 1 6 2009
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
August 6, 2009
AS
Board OfCOtJf1tyC~
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County
of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Donna Reed-Caron
Karen Homiak
Tor Kolflat
Paul Midney
Bob Murray (Absent)
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti
David J. Wolfley
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
Heidi-Ashton-Cicko, Asst. County Attorney
Mile. Con'eS:
ODd D I '2-- -II VC)-
It.d I loT. [ \\AS
Page 1
Copies to:
16 Pl A 5 ; 1
August 6, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Okay, I think we're -- whoa,tha~ will take you
out of your seats. .
Good morning. Welcome to the Thursday, August 6th meeting of the Collier COllllyPlanning
Commission. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Eastman and Mr. Murray both notified me they won't be able to make
it today.
Item #2
ROLL CALL
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that, will the secretary please do the roll call.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present.
Commissioner Murray is absent.
Commissioner Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, addenda to the agenda. We have two things under -- we may want
to add under new business. Well, one of them for sure. Bruce Anderson has notified us bye-mail earlier
this week about an issue he'd like to ask us in regards to consent agenda. He said it'd be a short discussion.
And I already told him it'd be okay to come under new business, if there's no objections from the Planning
Commission.
(No response.)
_CHAIRMAN SIRAIN:_Wit.!:t t!mt~we'ILk~~p -- make sure that's under new business at the end of
the meeting.
And then Msc Ashten, at one point you had mentioned the discussion on the formatting or the
processing of resolutions. Do you want to discuss that today or at a future meeting?
MS7 ASHTON-CICKO: Time permitting, depending on how late the meeting goes, then we can
add it.
Page 2
16JIA5
August 6, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so will.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's one thing I'd like to just bring up and that's the
transportation master modal plan that they have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The mobility plan?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under new business we'll add one for Bruce Anderson; two, the
mobility plan. And then time permitting, we'll add three, Heidi's resolution issues.
Item #4
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Planning Commission absences. The next regular meeting is
August 20th. I'm assuming everybody's available to make it.
The next non-regular meeting is next Wednesday, 8:30 in this room for floodplain management.
However, today was the day that we would probably need to get the materials for floodplain management.
Tomorrow CDES is closed. I'm not too -- I don't believe we're probably going to get our material, at least to
the extent we need today or -- by today.
I would suggest that we look at alternative dates for that meeting. I think it would be much better to
have a more comprehensive package for that meeting and be able to finish it than to have pieces that are not
thoroughly vetted out, including the cost analysis that I certainly -- should not be left to a phone call to
determine. It ought to be a little more in-depth than that. So with that in mind -- we haven't got anything
yet, David, we haven't got maps, we haven't got any of it.
Mr. Schmitt, do you see any problem with extending the date of that meeting?
MR. SCHMITT: No. I'm looking at dates. I asked Robert last night to check with the manager's
office on the availability of this room. So that meeting date will be changed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: He has -- of the list you gave him, he has everything ready -- well, except for two
items. One was the strike-through and underline, which I know he's working with the County Attorney's
Office to develop that. And I'm not going to rush him on that. So there's no sense in trying to push for that
date.
But the maps and everything else he has ready. It's just a matter of packaging it and distributing it.
Some of which will be in electronic format. Unless you want it printed. But most of it will be probably in
electronic format.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There were some documents that we asked for, like the rules for
hazardous materials. Because it's referenced in the document, it would affect and change the way a lot of
even homeowners may -- because a lot of those products may be in someone's garage. And that's why we
need the list. But it turns out it's 150 pages. So I think electronically is a very good way to do that, unless
somebody has an objection.
It would be on CD disc, I would assume.
MR. SCHMITT: Now, since you brought up the issue with an economic analysis, and I listened to
it after I went back to my office. The -- to what extent are you looking? Because what you've asked and
what I understand you asked to do is send it to the Productivity Committee. That's not my option. I can ask
them to do it, but that's something I would guess the Productivity Committee would most likely not do. I
Page 3
AuguJ ~ 2!b~;iA 5) '.
would most -- if you're looking for an extensive economic analysis, I would have to hire someone to do
that, and I'm not ready to do that at this juncture.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, I know that the economic committee couldn't do the take-offs
needed for the estimate.
What I wasn't too comfortable with, with Robert saying he called a few of the guys up, some of
them gave him ballpark numbers and he just averaged them out. That may not be close enough for a typical
home in Collier County. A 3,000 square foot home with a stem wall foundation isn't exactly done in the
rectangle or box format, which is your cheapest format. It's usually done with a lot of cuts, in and outs and
stuff like that, including hearths and other elements of structural walls or load-bearing walls inside the
house that would actually have to be up high.
I would rather we ask somebody to take a look at it. And I'm thinking you could get a guy like
Russell Budd, who used to be on this commission who runs probably one of the best general contracting
firms in this county. Contact him and see ifhe would just spend a little bit oftime to tell us what it would
take, more than just saying over the phone it's going to be somewhere between five and $20,000. I mean
something like that or someone -- a couple -- a little more detail might be more helpful for us to have a real
number that we can think is more real than just an average on the phone.
That's all I'm suggesting. If you had more time, which you need anyway, I think it wouldn't be bad
to try to do that.
MR. SCHMITT: The issue on stem wall, in many places it's already required. So again, this is
nothing that is not being asked of a developer that's already required in areas of the county.
So it's -- but I would ask ifthe Planning Commission would take the approach oflooking at the
broad view of each of the proposals and whether you support or not support those proposals, rather than
trying to bore down into the merits of it. If you don't support it, why spend the time on it.
And that's -- I guess conceptually look at the big picture and say either you agree with the proposal
or you don't. And if you do, then we can -- you would spend time exploring how it's written in the
ordinance. But if it's something that's not going to be supported at all, I don't see any value of spending a lot
of time discussing something that's not going to get your approval to go forward.
So I would recommend looking at it from a broad perspective and then decide whether you want to
get into the merits -- the economic impact of it or the pros and cons of the various proposals.
Does that sound like an approach you would like to take?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The problem is, to look at it in a more broad perspective, say each level, is
stem wall a good idea? Well, I'l1 tell you what: Everything that they're asking for to protect homes is a good
idea. But everything they're asking for to protect a home is already at an option a homeowner can pursue if
they want to.
Now, based on that, how much does govemment then -- should government step in and force you
to pursue and not allow you to make your own mind up? How much of that is worth it? I don't know.
And so until you come back with an economic analysis of what a stem wall costs on the average
per home in Collier County, I don't -- myself as one voting member of this board, I don't know if I can buy
into the program.
So I think as a minimum we've got to have some of that information, just to make the broad
decision you're asking for. If something costs ridiculously more but one homeowner w@ts to take that
option to lower his insurance and spread his payback over 13 or 20 years, that's up to him. But on the other
hand, is it worth the government to get involved and force every homeowner to do something? And I'm not
sure that's the right route. And I think the cost will have a big impact on that.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, the other -- one of the more contentious issues, the cumulative
improvements. And there's merit to that, but there's many arguments that -- the benefit does not outweigh
Page 4
16.1A5
August 6, 2009
the cost. So rather than discuss that, the DSAC has already voted against it. The committee's already voted
against it. So --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, who's putting it forward then if--
MR. SCHMITT: It is still something that staff is looking at. The building department believes that
it's a worthwhile proposal to track cumulative improvements. So it's -- so that's something that we as staff
looked at and said well, okay, we'll bring it to the Planning Commission and see what their idea is. It's not
us pushing it, it's the vetting process. And whether we bring it to the board or not, it depends. I've already
got two votes against it.
Rather than you spending four hours discussing the merits of the cumulative improvements, from a
broad brush perspective, no, we don't support it, and then move on and move on to one ofthe other issues.
So that's kind of where I'm going.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with the direction you're heading in. I don't think
the -- the rest of us may not have a problem either. But I still think we need some base data in which to get
to that point.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay. Then we'll do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the biggest one is the cost -- the stem wall one is a substantial
cost, possibly. And we don't even have a good handle on that. So that may have an impact on the way the
members of this panel vote.
MR. SCHMITT: I mean, and these proposals, the floodplain committee is a citizens committee of
both staff and appointed citizens, and it's also been various community meetings over the last year. And
we've got a lot of input on this. It's a matter of you're the next step. And the intent was to bring the
concepts. And if the concepts are not supported, we move on. I mean, that's -- this is not something that is
mandatory, per se, it's a matter of creating a program to meet compliance with the -- not the flood -- the
community rating system, CRS, and our insurance rating for the county.
So as you well know, we're already a CRS 7, and if we can move to a 6, we can. Ifnot, we'll stay
where we are. I mean, that's -- that's all this is about.
So in that perspective, what we want to do is bring the broad -- present the ideas, and then if the
ideas have any merit, then explore those ideas. And we'll bring the backup material.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that okay? Anybody have any problems?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll look forward to that -- let's approach it that way to begin with
then.
MR. SCHMITT: I hope by the end of the day I'll have an e-mail from Robert. I told him to check
this morning. And we'll have some dates and I'll be able to get those to you so we can discuss a meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you, sir.
Okay, so we're not going to be meeting on next Wednesday, so everybody can take that one off
your schedule. We'll get a new date and circulate it to whenever we happen to find it.
Item #5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 2. 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval of the minutes for July 2nd, 2009. Ifthere's -- everybody's
read those. If there's a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ms. Caron. Seconded by?
Page 5
16 It 1 A 5 ',J :
August 6, 2009
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MlDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Item #6
BCC REPORT - RECAPS - JULY 28,2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, the BCC reports and recap?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on July 28th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the conditional use
for St. Monica's Episcopal Church. As you may recall, that petition received the unanimous Planning
Commissioner recommendation of approval, but it had to go on the regular agenda because of letters of
opposition. The board approved 5-0, subject to the CCPC conditions of approval.
The board also heard on their summary agenda the variance companion rezone for this Margood
Harbor Park in Goodland, and that was approved on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: You're welcome.
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chairman's report. I think I just had enough discussion.
Item #8
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'll move into consent agenda items, which there are none for
today's hearing. We haven't met for quite a while on a regular meeting.
Advertised public -- oh, yeah, we had one issue I think a week -- a couple weeks ago, so it was a
real short one.
Page 6
1611 AS
August 6, 2009
Item #9A
PETITION: BD-2009-AR-14226, JOHN COWDEN
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Advertised public hearings. Now, the fIrst petition is
BD-2009-AR-14226, John Cowden, which is on 413 San Juan Avenue, Isles of Capri. It's a boat dock
extension.
All those wishing to participate in this action, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, Rocky, it's all yours.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Good morning. For the record, Rocky Scofield, representing the applicant,
Mr. Cowden.
That's just an aerial showing you the upper portion of Isles of Capri. The applicant lives on San
Juan A venue. Ray's pointing to it right there.
That section on the east side of San Juan there where the mangroves are across the waterway, that
is part of the aquatic preserve.
All ofIsles of Capri is in an aquatic preserve, just to -- I know you know this probably, but to
refresh you -- except for the manmade canals. You can see in those other avenues adjacent there. The
straight line canals inside are deemed manmade. When you come out on the ends ofthose streets, though,
that is aquatic preserve.
So the restrictions are very much an aquatic preserve, which we've talked about before, is to you're
limited to 500 square feet of dock space and certain water depths and those types of things.
I'm going to just give you a real quick brief history on this property. I represented this owner in
front of the Code Enforcement Board a few months back. When Mr. Cowden purchased this property, there
was an action already on the property when he purchased it from the previous owner. And they were cited
because of the boatlift.
That's the existing dock that's there now. The boatlift on the front of that dock protruded out further
than 20 feet, so there was a code enforcement action against the owner. He let Mr. Cowden know that at the
time of purchase. So after Mr. Cowden purchased it, he contacted our firm and asked us to help him out. So
we told him that you would have to remove the boatlift or get it permitted.
And so what we did at that time, we went ahead and we told him he'd have to go to DEP and Corps
of Engineers and then come back and get a boat dock extension. Well, he said, ifI have to go through all of
that, let's change the dock. Because the water depths right in front of the dock right now is 1.7 feet mean
low water, and in the middle of that lift it's about two feet. It's very shallow right around the seawall in that
area.
So we decided to come up with a new dock plan.
We went to the DEP. In the meantime, we'd gone back to the Code Enforcement Board several
times. They gave us extensions because we were dealing with the DEP. DEP took a lot longer, as usual,
than we thought in this case, aquatic preserve and all.
So back in March I came back to the Code Enforcement Board and told them we -- we'd already
received our DEP permits and we applied for a BDE in February of this year. So it was in the loop. BDE's,
here we applied in February, here we are today. They take time, too.
So at the March meeting we told Code Enforcement we're going to go ahead and rip out the lift so
we get rid of the action. And because it may be another six months before we get all this finalized. So that's
Page 7
, 6 11 A 5 ~j
*ugust It, 2009
what we did. He wanted to do it all at one time to save some costs, but he agreed, let's just rip it out and get
done of the code enforcement.
So that's where we are. Just remaining right now is the dock that you see right there.
This is the proposed dock that we have now, four-foot walkway -- wide walkway, which is only
allowed in aquatic preserve. The terminal platform, the N dock, the L dock there, you're allowed no more
than 160 square feet. We placed a boatlift on the outside.
The dock is out this far because the state only allows you to go out to minus four feet mean low
water in aquatic preserve. So we extended the dock out. The front of the dock is at mean -- minus four feet
mean low water. lbis is consistent with all the other docks on this street. And I'll show you an aerial of
that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a minus point four feet, right?
MR. SCOFIELD: Minus four feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Minus four feet? Because I thought what you just showed showed 0.4 feet
mean low water. Okay.
MR. SCOFIELD: No, no, it's minus four feet mean low water. I can show you. It's hard to see. The
water depths are super -- or they're on here. It's a layered on CAD, but it's very lightly.
And that's the -- it's actually the lift extends out to minus four feet on the proposed dock.
That's an area view of all the docks on the east side of San Juan, Mr. Cowden's neighbors. Shows
you the lengths of the docks that go out. You know, the neighbor on one side is out 52 feet. The neighbor
on the other side's out 43 feet. So this is consistent.
You can see the shoaling in just to the south of Mr. Cowden's dock. There's a huge shoaling in area
right there. And that's why those docks extend out past there.
The waterway over there is extremely wide. The navigable waterway width in there is actually
about 200 feet wide over to the shoaling you see on the east side of that water system there. And then you
go up into the flats and then you have mangroves.
The 340 feet on the application was actually measured over to the mangrove line. You see the cut
in the mangroves there? If you were -- that goes straight up from Mr. Cowden's dock. We didn't measure all
the way back in that little inlet, we just extended a line north and south along that fringe of mangroves and
measured the waterway at that point. That's the 340 feet that's on your application. The navigable waterway
width is 200 feet. The applicant's protrusion, proposed protrusion, still is less than 25 percent.
So this is consistent with everything around him. All the neighbors are in the same situation.
There's no complaints. We meet all of the criteria except number one in section two. And that -- if you read
that, it's just a technicality, because it strictly relates -- it says other things -- other than water depth. Excuse
me. So other things related to than water depths. Well, we're strictly a water depth situation here. DEP
won't allow us to dredge in aquatic preserve. So technically speaking, I guess if you read that number one in
section two, we don't meet it because it strictly relates to -- it says you can't use water depths as your reason.
So if there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there any other code enforcement cases on any of these other
docks?
MR. SCOFIELD: On the neighbors?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct.
MR. SCOFIELD: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
Page 8
1611"; A5
August 6, 2609
Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, what is the -- the existing dock, what is the T part? How
wide? I couldn't see that. I think it was in one of your diagrams. I forgot to look.
Yeah, well that, it doesn't -- I was just curious about what the --
MR. SCOFIELD: The existing -- well, it appears to me it's about eight feet wide.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I mean the length.
MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, the length.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: There's a scale in the upper right-hand comer.
MR. SCOFIELD: For the first morning I didn't bring my scale with me. But that does violate the
side setbacks too, if that's what you're looking at.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's what I'm looking at.
MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah. And that's -- these docks are older docks. A lot of them are grandfathered
in. So that wasn't an issue. It did become -- evidently the boatlift ofthe previous owner was put on at a later
date, which did come into the code enforcement deal.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Because that was going to be my point was if that -- the length of
that T did encroach on --
MR. SCOFIELD: Right, right.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Gotcha. So you're trying to improve it. All right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions ofthe applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, the personal watercraft that are going to be here, that's those little
things, jet ski kind of stuff, right?
MR. SCOFIELD: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What draft do they have to have?
MR. SCOFIELD: Ajet ski? Gosh, they can probably get by in eight inches of water or so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why do you need four feet of depth?
MR. SCOFIELD: I knew you'd ask that, or somebody would.
When you fill out an application, you know, the application asks what vessels does the owner have.
So we put those in there. Anybody who's done boating know that boaters change boats pretty regularly, for
the most part.
Right now Mr. Cowden has two jet skis, so that's what we put on the application. He's already told
us he's probably getting rid of them and getting a center console boat. So going through a boat dock
extension and all this time and money involved doesn't make sense to put a dock out only far enough to
moor a jet ski, because he'll be changing to a boat soon on. So we just do it one time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I knew you'd say that as an answer.
There is one other item I wanted to mention to you and that's you said that the canals shown on the
aerial are not part of the aquatic preserve, those in between -- those straight line canals. You are aware that
the property abutting -- or canal abutting this property is manmade as well. So I'm wondering how come it's
considered aquatic preserve, just out of curiosity.
MR. SCOFIELD: At the applicant's address?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, the channel in front of the applicant's home.
MR. SCOFIELD: You can clearly see from that aerial that it's been dredged.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've seen -- I've got photographs ofthe dredging from 1960.
MR. SCOFIELD: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can see a dredge setting in one of those lots digging out that canal. So
now why is that -- just out of curiosity, why is that aquatic preserve?
Page 9
1611 ^5;f'l
August 6, 200<f'
MR. SCOFIELD: The reason is because that was wetlands. Even though it was dredged, that was
prior wetlands. Where the other straight line canals was uplands. So when they went in there, obviously
they dredged out -- you can see it from those aerials.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. SCOFIELD: The deep part they dredged up, they piled it up, they filled the area. But the
mangroves and wetlands extended all the way over to that seawall. And that's why the state claims those as
their waters.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Any other questions of the applicant?
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Is it a state prohibition on that dredging, Rocky?
MR. SCOFIELD: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Is it a state prohibition on the dredging in that area?
MR. SCOFIELD: In aquatic preserves, it's a slim -- usually a slim to none chance that you will get
a permit to do dredging or maintenance dredging in an aquatic preserve if you can extend your dock out
beyond the shallow areas. That's the whole reason for the aquatic preserves. They want, you know, the
benthic community to thrive. They want grasses and crabs and all that kind of stuff. That's their protection
method. So dredging is discouraged and rarely given in aquatic preserves.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But it's not an absolute prohibition?
MR. SCOFIELD: It's not absolute. There are exceptions. But this wouldn't meet it.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Has this petitioner attempted to get a dredging permit?
MR. SCOFIELD: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody -- Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Ijust -- Rocky, I want to go back to the measurement here
across that waterway.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: To the shoaling on the other side. Obviously you can't boat over that
shoaling, so --
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: To the outside of your lift there to the shoaling on the other side is
200 feet; is that what you were saying?
MR. SCOFIELD: It's 200 feet from the seawall.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, from the seawall.
MR. SCOFIELD: Right.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
MR. SCOFIELD: It's 200 feet from the seawall to where you see that light colored area to where it
starts coming up on the shoal.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, yeah. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Rocky, thank you, we'll -- staff presentation now.
MS. CASERTA: Good morning, AsWey Caserta with the Department of Zoning and Land
Development Review.
This petition meets five of five primary and five of six secondary criteria as shown in the staff
report.
Page 10
16 \ 1 A 5
August 6, 2009
And no additional information. And just here to answer questions, if you have any.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, thank you.
Ray, are there any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers on this item.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were there any letters received on this item? Any e-mails or anything --
MS. CASERTA: I got one call from someone that did not oppose, just had some questions.
And back to the code enforcement, I'm not aware of any other issues on any neighboring
properties.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, with that we'll close the public hearing and entertain a
motion. Anybody? This isn't too hard, guys.
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I will. I'd like to propose BD-2009-AR-14226, the John Cowden
boat dock extension, to be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners for a vote of approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, we do the approval here, recommend for approval. Yeah, it ends
with us on this one.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It ends with us, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you recommend --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I recommend approval.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay, the boat dock is real simple compared to what we're going up to now.
Item #9B
PETITION: PUDA-2008-AR-14090, LCS-WESTMINSTER NAPLES. LLC
CHAIRMAN STRAIN:
Before we even get into this, I think I need to explain the process that
Page 11
16 '.' 'A5 .
August 6, 20~
we're going to get into so we can approach it logically, I hope.
There are three petitions involved in the next request. It's a 20-acre piece of property that exists on
Orange Blossom Drive. To the west of it and to the east of it are existing PUDs. Out of those existing
PUDs, the owner of the 20 acres wants to bring in five acres from each of those existing PUDs. So as a
result, the two adjoining PUDs have to be amended to create the new PUD, which is in the middle. And it
will be around a little less than 30 acres.
I understand from the applicant's dis -- discussions that have occurred it's an all or nothing deal for
the applicant. Either they get their PUD or they can't use any of the changes to any of the adjoining PUDs.
So based on that, I think it would behoove us to move forward with a discussion of the main issue
today, which is Siena Lakes, and then secondarily talk about the two removals from the other PUDs if we
get to that point.
So with that in mind, ifthere's any -- as long as everybody agrees with that or doesn't disagree, I'm
-- that's how we'll proceed.
Richard, since you represent Siena Lakes, do you have any problem with that procedural process?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir. I think that makes sense. I mean, we're going -- you're going to need
a vote regardless on the other two, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that, but what we do with the first one's going to be the biggest
Issue.
Okay. With that, first thing, anybody wishing to testiJY on this issue, which will be the Petition
PUDZ-200S-AR -14091, or 14090 or 14092, that's any of the petitions involving Siena Lakes or the
adjoining properties, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
Anybody wishing to discuss it. If you're going to plan to speak on behalf -- either for or against any
of these, then you need to be sworn in.
(Speakers were duJy sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich on the phone.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I did the same, and this morning out in the hall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich also.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else -- oh, Mr. Schmitt, you spoke to him too?
MR. SCHMITT: No, I just wanted to make sure before you proceed, those -- we only have one
public speaker slip. If anybody wishes to speak, if they would fill out the form, they're out in the hallway,
and get them in here so we can make sure you get your opportunity to speak.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, out in the hallway, the little slips, if you just put your name down
and the fact that you want to talk on Siena Lakes and give them to one of the gentlemen over here. That
will make sure you get time to speak.
As far as disclosures, I met with Richard Y ovanovich and Terry Cole and went over a lot of issues
and concerns that I had about the project. I also received some e-mails late last night. They have been
distributed for the record to all the planning commissioners. We had a regular bunch of e-mails that came
in our packet. The two that I received last night was from Mr. and Mrs. Choyce Johnson and Michael
Santo gatta, two different e-mails, two different letters. They're now distributed to everyone for the record.
Both were against the project for various reasons.
THE COURT REPORTER: I don't have them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have -- J.D., would you make sure the court reporter gets a copy
Page 12
16 11 A 5
August 6, 2009
of those? Thank you.
Okay, with that, we'll move forward with the presentation by the applicant.
And for the members of the public, the way we approach it, the applicant will make a detailed
presentation. We'll ask a lot of questions. Staff will then make a presentation. We'll ask more questions.
Then when that's all done, we'll ask the comments from the citizens who are concerned.
We ask that you limit your discussions to five minutes. It's not a hard and fast rule, but just as a
courtesy of our time we seek that, at least a limitation.
Richard, go ahead.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of
the petitioner in this case.
I've got several people here to speak and answer any questions you may have regarding the project.
I have Steve Nornes with Life Care Services. He's the actual person heading up this particular
project.
And Craig Davisson from Rink Design. He's the architect on this project.
Steve will be taking you through who Life Care Services is and what they do and how they pick
this site and what amenities they propose to offer. And Craig will take you through in detail the site plan
itself, both from the internal perspective of the site plan and the external perspective of the site plan,
basically to show you what our neighbors to the north, Lakeside, will see, what our neighbors to the east,
Bridgewater Bay, will see, and our neighbors to the south, Walden Oaks, will see when viewing the project.
I think it will go quicker if you'll let the three of us do our presentations. Hopefully we'll answer a
lot of the questions that we've discussed over the phone. And then ask questions. But however, if you have
to ask a question, we'll answer it at any time you deem appropriate to ask the question.
The request before you is to establish a very specific PUD. It's for a continuing care retirement
community. It's on 30 acres on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive between Airport Pulling Road and
Livingston Road. And on your visualizer is the location map for the project.
We will be removing approximately six acres from I think it's called the Oak Grove PUD; that's
where Bridgewater Bay is. And that project is already authorized to go forward with basically 24 units on
that property today, if the zoning doesn't get approved.
And then over to the west there's another PUD. I think that's the Orange Blossom PUD. There are
two owners of that PUD: The Greek Orthodox Church and the current owner of the property. We're taking
about five acres out of that. So there's the total site of 30 acres; 20 acres is currently zoned agricultural.
The continuing care retirement community is intended to be a community where people can age in
place. We're required to provide independent living units, assisted living units and then skilled nursing
units. So you move in at any stage of your health, but if you move in healthy, there's health care for you
throughout your -- the remainder of your life, should you choose to stay there.
There are a couple in town that you're probably familiar with, Moorings Park and Bentley Village
are continuing care retirement communities.
There are a lot of other communities that are senior housing communities that either provide just
independent living or just assisted living or a combination of independent and assisted, but there are very
few communities that do the full spectrum through skilled nursing. And that's what we're asking for is for
the right to do the full spectrum.
The request is for 340 independent units, 20 assisted living beds, and 45 skilled nursing beds, and
15 memory/dementia care beds. So there will be 340 independent units and then SO beds to -- in that
proposal.
When we did our density calculation on the property -- and I'm going to focus on what I perceive to
be the issues we've seen through the letters and our discussions, which are project intensity and project
Page 13
16 11 A 5 j
August 6, 2009
height, throughout the presentation. And so will Steve and so will Craig.
But when we did our density calculation, we equated those 80 beds as units. So when we did our
calculation of 420 units, that included the 80 beds. And that results in a 14-unit per acre project. But keep
in mind, that includes units and beds. So we were conservative in our representation of number of units.
We've asked for a floor area ratio of .6. The LDC provides that if you are straight zoned, it's the --
the only zoning that you can do this as a matter of right today is commercial zoning districts. If you are
straight zoned -- and maybe business parks. But none of the residential zoning districts or the agricultural
zoning districts would allow a CCRC as a matter of right. You would have to go through a conditional use
process or through a PUD rezone process to have a CCRC.
If you owned some commercial property and you wanted to do it as a matter of right, you would be
capped at a floor area ratio of .45.
The Planning Commission has seen a few combination independent and combination
independent/assisted living facility petitions recently at the floor area ratio of .6.
The reason the floor area ratio of .5 doesn't work is that was established many, many, many years
ago when the unit sizes were much smaller and the level of amenities was much less. In today's market unit
owners want decent sized units for their independent living units. They want to be pretty close to what
they're used to living in now in their condo unit or their single-family home. And so the units are bigger
than what was originally around when the .45 came around, and they want a lot more services. You have
wellness centers, you have dining rooms, you have auditoriums for entertainment and a lot more amenities
that were around during the .45 floor area ratio. So that's why you've seen petitions at the .6 floor area ratio,
and that's why we're asking for a .6 floor area ratio, to provide the unit sizes and amenities people who are
moving into continuing care retirement communities want.
The petition you have in front of you today is I think a bit unusual for the Planning Commission in
that you have the actual provider applying for the PUD, and the PUD master plan is not your typical
conceptual PUD master plan. You're seeing a very detailed master plan that will essentially be converted
into our site development plan in the future. So the buildings are located where the buildings are going to
be. The setbacks are set up.
So what you see is what you get today. Unlike a lot ofPUDs where the community comes and says
what are we really getting with the PUD.
When I was originally retained by LCS to help them through this process, I explained to them that
Collier County is a little unique when going through the rezoning process from probably wherever they've
ever been. I explained to them in Collier County we have a base density of four units per acre. Their initial
comment was wow, that's pretty low for an urban area density. We're used to much higher densities in other
areas.
And I said we're particularly sensitive to building heights. Generally three stories is acceptable
around here, but you get much above three stories you can expect a fight. So I said when designing your
site keep those two parameters in mind when designing your site.
And I also explained to them that historically the Board of County Commissioners has applied a
four-to-one ratio when they convert standard single-family or multi-family residences to senior housing. So
if you have a base density of four you can -- the board has historically allowed 16 units per acre for senior
housing where they would allow four units per acre for regular housing.
So they went about designing their project. And I said don't come in asking for more than what you
really need with the intent of negotiating down. Let's ask for what we really need and meet with the
communities to talk about what we really need.
And the project you have before you is what is really needed for LCS to build the quality CCRC
that they want to build that they believe people in Collier County will want to occupy.
Page 14
161(, AS
August 6, 2009
You could do something else on this site with lower buildings, but it will be much more lot
coverage, there will be more surface parking, and the project frankly will be not of the caliber that LCS is
interested in building, and in their opinion not of the caliber that people in Collier County would want to
move into.
So what you have before you is the real plan that is needed for this project to be a quality and
successful project.
On kind of a general note regarding CCRCs, the Future Land Use Element basically provides that a
CCRC would be allowed to be constructed anywhere within the urban area. From a compo plan perspective.
You would still have to go through the rezone process if you're not in commercial or the conditional use
process to have that happen. But from a where can they be located, the Future Land Use Element would
allow them to be located anywhere within the urban area.
And on a general note, I've been asked, and I think at the NIM I was asked, what is this? Is this a
residential project, is this a commercial project, is this an institutional project? And I wasn't being flip when
I said it's all three. Your independent units are similar to your standard residential units; your assisted living
units and your skilled nursing units are similar to institutional type uses; and then you have your restaurants
and your other amenities that could be, you know, classified as commercial uses. So it's basically a mixed
use within itself. And that's what this project is.
So I don't think there's an easy answer to say this is a residential project, this is an institutional
project or this is a commercial project.
And quite -- and honestly, I think the revisions we've made to the Land Development Code to
pinpoint you into either you're a commercial PUD, you're a residential PUD, you're a mixed use PUD or
you're an institutional PUD basically provides a disservice to the property owners and the people in the
community.
What we used to do is we were PUDs and our advertisement would say exactly what was in the
PUD, so you didn't have to worry about was it an RPUD, a CPUD or an MPUD and then figure out what
that really means. And we don't fit clearly into any of those. So we're a PUD that wants to be a CCRC.
Now, if you look at all the different residential standards throughout the county, the residential
zoning districts vary in height from 35 feet to 75 feet. Likewise on the commercial; the commercial districts
range in height from 35 feet to 75 feet. So we could have picked almost any of the residential districts and
any of the commercial districts as the benchmark. We could have picked C-4, which would have allowed
75 feet in height as the benchmark.
Staff picked C-3. We don't object to that, because what it really comes down to at the end of the
day, that we have a good quality project that has taken into consideration our neighbors. And we think we
do. So I don't think picking a benchmark of 50 feet is the magic determination of what is or is not the
height that this project should have.
And Craig will get much more into detail on the master plan to discuss those compatibility issues.
We have -- and I'm briefly going to touch on this. North is the other way, sorry. My standard
disclaimer on directions.
North is up. And that's the Lakeside community. I'm briefly going to touch on the master plan. That
is -- and they have three-story and some two-story located adjacent to that property, that property line.
We have limited our buildings in that area to three-story buildings. And then as you go further to
the east, that's where we have our two-story assisted living and skilled nursing and common areas closer to
them. And Craig will get into greater detail about that.
And similarly, to the east we've put heights on those structures, similar to what can be built today
on the property and similar to what can be allowed within Bridgewater Bay.
So when we're talking about compatibility -- and I think a lot of the letters think that compatibility
Page 15
.. 6 1'1
i i'
f\ :)'~l
August 6, 2009
means that if I'm a three-story building, the only thing that's going to be compatible with me is anoneJ
three-story building. And ifI'm a density offour units per acre, the only thing that's going to be compatible
with me is a density of four units per acre.
I don't believe that's the correct analysis. And if you'll look at master planned comrnunities >uch as,
you know, Pelican Bay, Pelican Marsh, Lely Resort and others, you will see that within these mask'
planned communities you have varying types of projects. You'll have single-family projects, you'll ha\ e
lower scale multi-family projects, and then you'll frequently see your mid-rise project that has a higher
density level. And you will see that they are next to each other within that concept. So you will see lower
density and lower scaled projects adjacent to higher density and taller building projects within master
planned communities. And through that process there's been the determination that it's compatible to have
different density projects and different height projects adjacent to them based upon the development
standards that are within that PUD document to ensure compatibility.
And we believe that that concept needs to be applied when you're outside of a master plan
community as well. If you'll look at the area, and can you come -- you don't want the same product (In every
piece of property. If you did, theoretically the first project you did in Collier County would have set the
benchmark and nothing would have ever been above that, because that's what compatibility would bave
been determined on.
But what we're saying is look at compatibility based upon our design standards and how we'v<
layed out the site for compatibility with our neighbor. And we think that's the appropriate measure jj'om a
development density standpoint and intensity standpoint, based upon the development standards.
Likewise, if you look at traffic impacts from a -- as a consideration of compatibility, we have done
the TIS. And the TIS indicates that if we were to do the 117 units, single-family units we could do today on
the 30 acres, which I think is a fair assumption since the compo plan would allow that, our traffic generation
would be slightly higher than it -- for the single-family project than it would be for the CCRC.
And I know, there are sceptics in the audience and I know there are sceptics on the Planning
Commission. But we use the ITE manual -- and Ted Treesh is here to answer those questions that you may
have regarding transportation.
I forgot to introduce a couple of other people. Bob Duane's here also to answer any professional
planning questions you may have. And Terry Cole is here to answer any engineering type questions that
you may have regarding the project. They're not going to be making a formal presentation, so that's why
those three slipped my mind when I did the introductions.
But the ITE manual is a manual that's put together based upon CCRCs throughout the country. So
there's data behind those numbers. And if you think about it logically, the -- and you can ask your 0'vV!1
transportation staff this. From a transportation standpoint the people who come to work at this project don't
come to work in the peak hour. They come prior to the breakfast time to get everything ready for people.
Then their shift will end before the afternoon, getting ready for the dinnertime period ends. So they eome
and go offPeak, the employees that are working there.
And likewise the residents. The residents, frankly, a lot of them will bring their car and they w,m't
use them. And most of them won't use their car, because we provide group transportation to where the)'
need to go, and they will use that group transportation.
And we provide on-site amenities, so they don't need to go atlywhere for a wellness center, Jor
entertainment and for food. So the transportation numbers are dramatically less for a CCRC. And that is
why you will see that a single-family project has the -- with much less units has a traffic generation about
the same as our particular project.
I wanted to point out, going back and staying on the compatibility theme, you'll see throughout
Collier County standard zoning districts adjacent to each other that are -- that allow different types of
Page 16
16 I ~I A 5
August 6, 2009
development. If you go into the City of Naples, you'll see single-family adjacent to multi-family. I don't
think -- and it's a typical neighborhood design grid system, very few gated communities in the City of
Naples. I don't think anybody questions that the City of Naples is a nice place to live.
I talked about a few master plan communities. The ones I mentioned I don't think anybody
questions, it's a nice place to live. And you can even look at some of the other areas that I consider to be a
nice place to live that has various zoning districts within it.
And I would bring up an example to be Vanderbilt Beach. On VanderbiJt Beach you have R T
zoning district immediately adjacent to RSF-3. The RT zoning district allows 75 feet in height, 16 units per
acre. RSF-3 allows a single-family home at three units per acre. So there are many examples of
single-family being adjacent to much taller buildings, and they've been determined to be compatible.
I think we've beaten the compatibility horse on just a general level pretty good. And the architect
will get into how we really address it on our particular project in a second.
I also wanted to talk briefly about how we address traffic impacts and how we believe we've gone
above and beyond what most projects would do for our traffic impacts.
We have agreed to provide an interconnection drive, an ingress and egress drive for the Lakeside
residents, if they want it. If they want a drive to get in and out of their community, and years ago they did,
we've agreed to provide them an in and out drive on our property, incorporating the water management for
that road into our property at no cost to them, other than they're going to have to connect to it on their side
and they're going to have to pay the ongoing maintenance of that road. But the construction of that road and
the right-of-way needed for that road will be at our expense.
Now, your staff report conflicts a little. We spent a lot of time talking to transportation staff about
this interconnection road. And candidly we had heard that Lakeside didn't want it and they didn't want it
when it was going to be at their expense. I think that they -- some people in Lakeside have changed their
opinion. I think they may want it now that it's not going to be at their expense. I frankly don't know the
answer whether they want it or they don't want it. We have agreed to provide it. But we cannot build your
standard county road 100 percent in our project to provide them interconnection.
When dealing with your transportation staff, they believe that vehicular interconnection was the
critical need for Lakeside, because pedestrian and bicycle interconnection already occurs on Airport Road.
So they agreed that we would provide a drive.
Now, planning staff, comprehensive planning and zoning, want to have a bike path and a sidewalk
on that drive road as well. And frankly, that would take another chunk of our property. We think it's
unnecessary and it shouldn't be our burden to -- we shouldn't have to bear 100 percent in the cost of
providing interconnection to other communities that are already built communities.
Now, staff has cited in your staff report a reference to one of the comprehensive plan policies, and
that policy says that it's to encourage. It says, all new and existing development shall be encouraged to
connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighbors or other development,
regardless ofland use type.
The word's encouraged. It doesn't say that they're required.
So we believe that we have done what the county has encouraged us to do, which is to provide
vehicular interconnection, and thus we believe we are consistent with the comprehensive plan regarding
__jn1erconnection. And we're willing to provide that, but we would object to the interconnection including
both a sidewalk and a bike path. So we would be in disagreement with staff condition number one in the
PUD.
We also ask for --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't mean to break in there. When we spoke I was thinking that
Page 17
16 11
August 6, 2009
AS,
. ,
your CCRC is not going to even use that road at all? I know where it is, yeah. But you're not going to
connect your property to it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We -- at this time we don't have plans to interconnect to that road. We're
not building that road for our project, we're building that road for Lakeside. If in the future we do
interconnect with that road, we'll pay our fair share of the maintenance of that road. But right now we're
building that road -- it has never been on our plans to build an interconnection road to Lakeside.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Probably because of the security issue and--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: One thought was, and this is in the -- staffis saying the reason that we don't
want to do the road is because we have -- our site-related hardship. Because we don't want to bring
Lakeside through our project.
And they're right. We don't want to bring Lakeside's traffic through the CCRC and have them use
our local roads. We think general traffic is incompatible with a senior housing project. So you're right, we
have said we don't want to do that. But that's not a self-created hardship, because there's no requirement
that we do it in the first place. We're encouraged to do it. And we are proposing an alternative means to
provide interconnection on our property but not within the project, if you will.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I guess my point was, you're talking about the bike paths and so
on. Because your community could make use of a path, a walkway or a bikeway and do some sort of a
camera in and out at the parking lot there about a third the way up from Orange Blossom.
I'm not suggesting any architectural this or that or design, but I'm just saying, I just found that a
little unusual for you not even to be using any of that road that you're going to build.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Frankly, we don't need it.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I know.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, we don't need it.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's not a cheap road --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- to have to build. It's several hundred thousand dollars that we're going to
have to pave to build that road.
We had two deviations related to that road that we disagree with staff on their conclusions. The
first one I just talked about, the sidewalk and bike path.
The second one relates to a required buffer on our property. We're -- the LDC says that we're
supposed to have a 20-foot buffer adjacent to this road. We're asking to reduce that to 15 feet and put
enhanced plantings in there, because we're trying to save some feet in the project. And again, staff is
recommending denial of that deviation, because they think that this is all a self-created hardship. So we
take exception to those two staff findings in the report.
We had a -- we had a neighborhood information meet. It was at the Italian American Club. I think
there were about 83 people there.
In my opinion, and it's my opinion, the majority of the people thought the project was a good
project. There were some people who said they didn't like it. Thought it was too dense and too taIl. But we
came away from that thinking that a majority of the people felt that what we were doing was a good quality
project.
You have received a few letters and you got a couple today, so I haven't had a chance to actually
plot where they are. But -- I don't have my map. Later on if necessary I'll put up a map to show you the
location of where those people who wrote you the letters actually live.
In generalities, they're from Lakeside and they live here. And on Lakeside there's a Citrus
Boulevard that goes across here. They live on the other side of the Boulevard, or Road, whatever it's called.
Page 18
1 k I" A 5
Augu* 6, 2009
And their front door basically fronts our front door.
As you know, in Lakeside their views are out back to their lake. So their front door is to our front
door. And it's three-story product adjacent to three-story product.
And over in Bridgewater Bay there is -- one of the letters was from someone in about this area,
which is basically adjacent to the -- or looking out at -- I believe it's angled this way as that residence. And
then there's another building that goes this way.
They're also adjacent to three and two-story product. Although this corner of the building right
here, that's a five-story building. But this corner right here, this unit steps down to four.
That's the location of the ones that we've seen in your packet. The couple that we were handed this
morning, I don't know where they reside. And again, Craig will take you through how we got to where we
are.
And I want to end on a discussion about what do you typically see as a density or intensity for a
CCRC or senior housing project in the first place. Because I don't think one should assume you can do
senior housing at the same base density offour units per acre that you would find in typical residential.
And I'll take you through just a couple of projects. And I can put them on the visualizer for you as
we discuss them. And some are in the process and some are being approved right now.
You have the project that's making its way through right now, through the City of Naples. They're
doing an annexation and a comprehensive plan amendment and a PUD for the Bridges at Gordon Drive. It
has 396 independent units and 92 assisted living units on 22 acres. So their requested density is 22.2 units
per acre. I think if you took out the assisted living units and just looked at the IL units, that's a density of 18
units per acre.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, so we can orientate ourselves, if you know the locations of these
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will, I will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- give us where they're generally located.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: This particular project, the Bridges at Gordon, is on the Zoo property that
was acquired, you know, when the county acquired part of the Zoo property and a portion of the Zoo
property was sold to the private sector. It's on that piece of property within that Zoo property.
The Terraces of Bonita Springs is another combination project of independent and ALF -- I mean
assisted living. 462 units on 20 acres. That's up on U.S. 41, north of Bonita Beach Road.
Brighton Gardens 1 believe is on Airport. Is that -- right. And that's an assisted living. It's an
independent living and skilled nursing at almost 23 units per acre.
The Vanderbilt Beach Trust property came through the commission -- the Planning Commission
and BCC about a year ago, maybe a little more, a little less. It is on Vanderbilt Beach Road. It is adjacent to
Wilshire Lakes. And frankly and candidly, it's adjacent to the multi-family product in Wilshire Lakes. That
was approved for independent living units and assisted. The independents are going to be built. And that
was approved at 25 units per acre. And that was approved with four-story product, three stories over
parking, adjacent to two-story product in the Wilshire Lakes multi-family project.
Then you have Napoli Village, which was approved a year and a half or so ago, up on U.S. 41. It's
the old Szabo Nursery. And that was approved at -- as a combination of assisted and independent living
units. And it was approved at 25 units per acre.
And then you have the Carlisle that's adjacent to the Italian American Club, that when we called
them and asked them what they are, they told us they're 350 total units, independent and assisted living
units on they told us, 18 -- 17 to IS acres. So their density is approximately 19 units per acre.
I go through that just to show you that --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Chair?
Page 19
,,,,,\ ~-
16 '1 H ,)
August 6, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley again.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Do you happen to have any of the information on the M00'ings?
Because I know they're building, they're adding on some high-rises, more high-rises.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know the exact numbers for the Moorings.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Because that's pretty large. And they do border single-family.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. They have a golf course between them and the single-family. But
yes, the Moorings. And, you know, that's a fine example of a quality CCRC.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. I know they cover the whole -- that's why I was wondering
what their --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. So I think they're probably a little unique. They're older and tbey had
a golf course on there and all that. But they are, you're right, adding some higher -- taller buildings Oll their
project.
I go through that discussion to show you that what we have asked for is in fact lower than the other
projects that have gone through recently and are going through now the process. So we're asking for what
we need. These types of projects are historically -- if you compare unit number to unit number are going to
have more, there's no question about that.
So what I'd like to do now is turn this over to Steve. Steve will tell you who LCS is, their
experience and why the site and what they're going to do on the site. And then Craig will take you through
the master plan in detail, unless you have more questions about anything I've discussed at this point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I've got a lot of questions about what you've discussed, Richard. I'm
sure that most of us have. But you had originally started out to request that we wait until after you finish. It
might be more productive. Because maybe some other answers will come out of your other two prescnters.
Unless someone has an urgent need to ask a question now, so --
MR. NORNES: Good morning. As Rich said, I'm Steve Nornes. I'm the Senior Project
Development Manager with Life Care Services, and I'm here this morning to give an overview of Life Care
Services. Also touch base on what is life care, what is the continuum of care and what really are we
proposing. And then why Naples, why has LCS targeted this area. And then have some pictures oftbings
that we've done. And hopefully at the end you'll get a flavor of who the company is, our experience, why
we want to be here, and then the quality that we would bring to this area.
So with that, first of all, I'm a 21-year employee with Life Care Services. Most of my time has been
in the operations. I've been executive director for 15 of the years managing a continuing care retiremcnt
community.
So I come with (sic) you for a good background of the keys of management, the importance of
understanding the hospitality business we're in, the importance of serving residents who are living there.
And so we come with the mission that we're here to focus on the resident in delivering the best possible
housing experience for them and their family members.
What also grounds me is that I had a unique opportunity to have my grandmother, Ida Nornes, live
in the community I managed. She moved in and lived to 102, but was there for 11 years during my tenure.
And Grandma and I became friends, different from my other siblings. And we asked some
questions and we talked a lot. And one of the things I asked her, I said Grandma, I'm really curiolL~, why
did you move to a continuiflg care retirement community? You know, what was tlte reason. She was a . _.
farmer and I'm from Minnesota. And she lived in northern Minnesota and she moved down to the big city.
And she said, well, I moved for security.
And I said, well, I understand that, doors and locks and feeling safe. She goes, no, that's not the
answer. Your father is now retiring, your uncles have retired, and I've been a person who's grown up and
taken care of myself. I've made my own decisions. I wanted to move to a community in which if I need
Page 20
161'L~'A5
August 6,1009
health care, it's there on-site, your dad doesn't have to worry about where Grandma's going to go or how she
can afford it, and I want to plant in place. And to her that was the most comforting part of what she did.
My message today is when I design, I think of my Grandma, I think of we're building for people
who are living in it. And we ask a lot of questions. Why would you want to move to a continuing care
retirement community? LCS is focused on that. _
So through my message, I will weave in that we're resident focused, resident driven, and we're here
to develop a project that will be here very long term. And so I come with you with that experience.
Life Care Services has been around for over 45 years. What we do and all we do is we develop and
we manage continuing care retirement communities. We are based in Des Moines, Iowa. But in fact, we've
been down in this area in the Seventies. And we were -- our CEO who just retired was the project
development manager for Moorings Park. We were the original developer, we designed it, we came up
with it. And so we have an experience in Naples and we have an experience in the Florida market.
But we've been around for quite a long time and considered one ofthe experts in the field of how
to manage continuing care retirement communities. We're employee owned as a company. Through our
time we developed 45 different continuing care sites.
And then also from a management side we currently manage over 86 communities. And so we
have a wealth of knowledge. We have regional expertise and support which we can provide to each of the
places that we manage and we own.
Currently we're in 28 states. We serve over 23,000 residents daily, so we have the experience of
understanding the hospitality business.
One of our strengths of our company is that 73 employees have been with LCS for over 10 years.
I'm a 2 I-year employee. I think speaking for myself, the company is fair, they care about the person who's
working there, and we have a good mission. We're developing senior life care campuses and developing
communities. And so all people that are part of that company are focused on that. And we have over 16,000
employees within our campuses.
Here's a map of where we have managed. And you can see the East Coast is predominant. The
West Coast is coming along, but mostly CCRC's, as you know, have been in the east. And Florida has an
exceptional amount, number of continuing care projects. And so in this area, when we've done focus
groups, people are knowledgeable about what is a CCRC. It's independent living with support services in a
commons clubhouse. And so we have experience throughout the country.
The development side is we develop properties we manage. We're not a developer that will go out
and develop things that we are not part of. We look at things for a very long-term perspective. We are
highly selective in the places where we want to be when we pick our sites.
What's also, and it's true, is that we take a very long-term perspective. The project, and you'll hear
from the timeline, has a long gestation period from the time we start with our focus groups, identifY market
demographics to actually building. And then we will be here long term, and so we take that perspective.
And clearly, my messages were focused on the resident. Clearly they are who we're designing for.
And everything we do makes sure that we listen, we understand, and we develop our project to support
what they're looking for.
And clearly the resident today in our long-term perspective, we're looking today what is market
driven~but we're also looking at what is five, 10 year!, out from today and what is appropriate and what
people want. A clear theme that's coming out is people want choice, they want control in their life. And so
as we designed -- we have designed our product based on those driven principles.
1bis is an illustration of again a continuing care retirement community. And for perspective, it's
residential living. It's independent living. And you'll see some pictures what people are actually moving
into. We'll also have the clubhouse. And that's our name for the commons. And that's where all the central
Page 21
f" ~
16 , 1 H,'
August 6, 2009
activities will be, where people will join together.
When we're talking about a CCRC is that people, when they first look, they may be looking ~t
square footage of what unit they want to be living in. But as we talk about it, you're buying more than just
the place you're living in, you're buying the amenities. And this is where you can entertain, this is where
you can meet friends. So all of this community is part of your home.
In fact, what people really are looking for then is to have a plan in place, whether it's skilled
nursing on-site, assisted living, memory care. That's what comprises of a continuing care retirement
community, all those components. And so we need to become expertise in how to -- residential living,
hospitality business of dining services, housekeeping and maintenance and health care, we need to be very
good at that.
What is a typical retirement community? As I said, it's a continuum. You move in and you live in
there until if some time you need future health care, it's on-site. It involves a one-time entrance fee and then
a montWy service fee. And that monthly service fee will cover all the amenities. That's independent Lving;
home care is part of that. We like people to age in place, and so we'll provide home care, assisted living and
skilled.
The residency agreement will say you have full maintenance -- will cover full maintenance inside
and out, it will cover all your utilities and tax, and housekeeping, security, access to the community,
long-term care.
Really, one check covers all your living expenses. When you think about all the checks you write,
there's quite a few each month. So you write one check.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing I might want to note. We're a zoning board. And if you could
focus your presentation on things relative to zoning more than operations and cost, it might be more
productive for us to review.
MR. NORNES: Appreciate that. I just -- we heard some comments that what is life care and
CCRC, but I'll speed up and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care if you speed up, I'm just suggesting that we -- we do zomng
here.
MR. NORNES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how you spend your money, how you charge and things like that
aren't too relevant to our decision-making process.
MR. NORNES: Fair enough. I think it was appropriate to understand the quality and what we are,
and I will move through.
lbis -- the key of our site is the amenities. We'll have multiple dining venues. That's driven
because of choice. People don't want to eat in the same place.
Fitness center and healthy lifestyles is the key, moving forward, and so we'll have fitness centers
on-site, pools.
And you can see by this illustration here, in a given day a person can go to the bank, can go to the
-- out for lunch, can go to the spa. And these are the things that we've heard from consumers as we are
building, they want things on-site. And that has been a real change from the time in the Seventies till now.
And so this project has moved along with adding more amenities. People are concerned about long-term
care, maintenance, socialization, security. That's why they choose our product.
Average age for people who move in are 78. Typically 50 percent are couples when you first start
out, and then the average length of a residency is eight to 12 years when you develop for a CCRC.
Why Naples? We came here and did market studies and really looked at are there people here who
fit our age and income requirements to have senior housing options.
We feel this area is a very good market, and the studies have said that, that when you look at the
Page 22
16 I l' A 5
August 6, 2009
populations age 75 and above, 38 percent of your population fits that mode. Nationally the number is 16
percent who are 75 plus in a community.
And so we came in here and did market studies. We studied the local areas, the stars where the site
is. And really, this project lit up. Because there's a number Qf people who are age and income qualified.
And in the five-year plan that number will grow. There are more people coming in.
We also did focus groups. And we said hey, you moved from the Midwest and you've come down
to this market or you moved from the East Coast. And we asked, would you stay here, would you live here
if there was a choice for you. And they said yes, we would want to live here.
But the focus group said we need more than just what's here today. We want to have opportunity to
stay in control of our lives. We want to have refundable entrance fee. The entrance fees today are mostly
traditional where you pay an entrance fee and it's amortized out and there's no return. Ours would be an 80
percent return. And then they said they want lifetime coverage if assisted living and memory care.
So our focus groups have said that it's the right product. They want to stay in control, and they want
a refundable entrance fee.
From a development process, we are juggling many things. We have the government approvals
which we are today. In this state there's a statute Department of Insurance, the 651. They're also an agency
before we can start marketing, we have to present to them our marketing plans, our financial plans, our
disclosure. It's really a protection board for the consumers of this area.
They also set out how many beds we need to have within our community. And it's at 25 percent or
one to four.
When we look at operational communities, typically you're about 24 percent of your -- you need 24
percent of your beds available for the health care component. So when you're sizing them, you will see
that's about the right mix.
Historically what we do is through our 40 years we've done actuarials where we've taken a look at
what is the utilization for health care for permanent people who go to health care, people who stay
temporary, people who move out of the community or people who die. And these numbers come up to be
about 24 percent is what we need.
In a life care community, clearly, if you don't have the beds available for what your contract says
and you need to have them go to another community, that really defeats your purpose of a life care
community. It's bad marketing, it's costly. In fact, if we don't have the beds available, we have to pay the
cost for someone who goes to another health care.
So it's critical that you size them right to meet your population. And that's where you can see in
presentation we're at 25 percent of that mark. And that's set by our historical projections and also the state
has taken a look at that. And that number can go up and down based on your justification of utilization. So
that's how you size the community.
In our business we are looking for milestones for no go. We are in the process here of hopefully
getting your approval, we're in the process of sales. You have to think about sales. And through our
time line we have to meet -- the market has to respond to say yes, what you're offering is there.
And then to start construction you need to get into pre-sales. In today's financing world you need to
get 65 or 70 units sold before you can actually finance the project and build it. And then obviously we're in
the design and getting the construction pricing. _"
Here again, it's a timeline. We started the project in 200S, and then now we're in the process of the
state and county approvals. Hopefully then we'll start our pre-marketing phase where we'll get people
interested in our product. We'll develop a priority gateway waitlist. And then we'll actually start the
selections ofthe units for sales.
Construction under this plan wouldn't be out till 2012. And operations wouldn't be out till 2014. It's
Page 23
16 , 1 A 5 \
August 6, 2009
a very methodical process that you go through, and it takes time and it takes long-term commitment to
building.
The economic impact is about $190 million is the total capital cost. We have selected Kraft
Construction Company to be our general contractor. Right now it's estimated about $120 million. And so as
you know, today that's a great economic opportunity for this area. And people are very interested and
motivated for us to become part of this community.
Long term we provide jobs, all year round jobs. And really, we provide jobs, professionals. But I
had one brief story where a kid worked in our -- high school kid worked in the dining room and a parent
came in who said, hey, thanks for having your (sic) child work in our dining room. And I said why are you
thanking me? He said, well, when my kid went to college to get an exam, he said he got accepted to the
college because he worked in a senior life care campus.
My point is that we go beyond our walls. We create opportunities for people who live here, we
create volunteerism, we create employment.
We also are considered a low-impact project. When you're considering projects, we're not affecting
the school systems, very little of the fire department, and so we are a good fit for the area, and also a
property tax member.
This is quickly some slides of projects that I've been working on, LCS. This is in Mystic,
Connecticut, about a mile from the Mystic seaport. It's called Stoneridge.
The point here in this slide is that landscaping is important. People who move in are really making
sure we have good views. We keep our grounds up. We maintain our buildings. We believe people -- and
here you can see, they have porches here. Here's the front entrance of Stoneridge. There's a driving entrance
as you come up. Swimming pool.
Again, as I mentioned, healthy lifestyles is critical. We have fitness clubs on-site. People want
aerobics, they want to do lap swimming, they want physical fitness rooms.
Timber Ridge was our first silver lead certified project. We will be pursuing lead certification on
this program here. We think that's the right place. It's in Issaquah, a suburb of Seattle. And it's in a planned
development area. So this is a very small site which needed to go high-rise.
Here you can see the main entrance. Architecturally what we try to do is fit the area. It's the Pacific
Northwest. Woods and rock. Here's the finish of the back side. You can see there's outdoor sitting areas,
there's a residential component. Here's a sitting area where you can have outdoor fireplace. These views are
looking out at the Cougar Mountain, a mountain range.
Dining. There's multiple venues here. There's a main dining room, a casual dining room and a cafe.
Again, people want choice. Our project is they eat when they went and how much they'd like to eat.
Here is illustrations of some of the commons. In the lower right-hand corner is a picture of our
health care center area. It's actually a tub. In the nursing home lingo we call it a tub room. In the hospitality
business we call it a spa. We believe wherever you are you should have equal treatment as if your front
doors are appropriate.
This would be an example of someone who's getting in our skilled health care the experience they
would receive going into our health care. And this would be the spa versus you're having your tub bath,
your bath this week. We take pride in our philosophy of resident -centered care. We develop smaller pods.
And it gives you illustration.
Here's the quality of some of our kitchens. It's granite with maple, hard floorings. This is a view out
of the mountain range. But it's a very nice, high-end project.
The Heritages in Brentwood, Nashville. Very nice upscale community. Again, the architecture is
going to support the Nashville environment. There's here parking underneath the building. We try not to
have a lot of asphalt. You can see the villa or residence that people can walk.
Page 24
161.' ^~
August6, :fl)~
Here's their dining room, formal, different than this previous one.
Again, some more common space.
Sagewood is in Phoenix. We're partnering with Mayo for some of their health systems. But this is a
larger site that was bought. And you can see here, it fits the Phoenix market. Outdoor amenities. People are
looking for that.
Here's an example, the main entrance. You have line of sight, you can see through the building.
Place where people can meet. There's a library, there's a front desk, there's a cafe. And here's the
construction.
In fact, that was under -- it should be opening up this year. And it was one ofthe only projects that
got financed last year. It was a $160 million financing, and many projects did not get financed during that
time. We attribute that to our strength of the company.
And then Trailing Woods is a development project in Minnesota.
Architecturally we design to fit the area. We don't want to develop a project that you go up and say
straight senior project. It's a residential feel, active lifestyle. You can see people living there. Again, there
are some commons and amenities that we put in. People want to be outside.
Here's the swimming pool, feeling of a pool for wellness. And dining is critical. Our dining rooms
are designed where you can feel comfortable living, but you can feel great bringing a friend.
And that's a quick overview of LCS, Life Care Services, and again what -- the life care concept.
We'll turn the project over to Craig Davisson, who's the head planner, and he will go through the
site and go through actually the building plans. And I'll be around to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before he does, we take a break at 10:00, so we'll be taking a break till
10:15. We're going to take a break after 1 ask Richard Yovanovich one question.
How much more time do you need, Richard, for your presentation?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Fifteen minutes, 20? Well, we're not going to get done in five.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're not going to be done in five, so about 20 minutes --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm going to wait -- you're not even going to start until we get back
from break. But I want to know how much more time you need --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we need --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- before we get into our questions and we get into --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- about 20 minutes to take you through the site plan and the landscape
buffers and all that good stuff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll take a break to 10:15.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Ray.
Richard, your team's got 19 minutes, 30 seconds left.
MR. DAVISSON: My friends here took up all my time, so I'm going to just cut it --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, he did.
MR. DAVISSON: -- in half and get right to the crux of the situation, which I -- my name's Craig
Davisson, by the way. I'm an architect with Rink Design Partnership out of Jacksonville, Florida. I have
family here in Naples, Florida. ,
We're a firm of30 people: Architects, landscape architects, planners and interior designers. And
I'm going to basically breeze through the first half of it.
You can see some images. If it's something you want to go back to at a later time, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to get closer to the mic, unfortunately.
MR. DAVISSON: It's something that we can come--
Page 25
16 ; 1
August 6. 2009
~ ..--
(\ ,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. DAVISSON: -- back to at a later time. I myself sit on the board of design review committees
in a couple of counties in northeast Florida.
I'm sensitive to the letters that have been written by the residents, and I'm also sensitive to your
views, so I will get right to what I believe is the issue today, is the density and --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Tilt your mic down.
MR. DAVISSON: The density and setbacks.
Okay. These are some projects that we're responsible for. Our site, lead, what Steve touched on, the
Florida vernacular.
Okay, let me just start with the site plan. And what you're seeing -- maybe ifI can pOlnt. Can you
see the pointer?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes.
MR. DAVISSON: Okay. What we have in the orange is what we're calling independent living,
which Steve described. That independent living is basically what we're talking about, kind of the active
zone of the community. And the basic front door of the community is on Orange Blossom.
What is in the orange is actually four-story above garage.
In the center of the site, which is basically the heart and soul of the community, is the cl ubhouse or
common space which handles all the functions. One might think of a community clubhouse, like a golf
clubhouse that serves, you know, three different dining venues.
But what we've done along Orange Blossom Trail, in lieu of basically backing the site up like we
see where basic -- you know, most of the communities have their back turned to the street. And we're
turning it around. We're pulling the entry back, creating a front door to the neighborhood. And we've put
the four-story over parking. And the automobile is a primary driver to what we're doing here today. That
this is a walkable community, a sustainable community and a viable community. We're putting two and
three quarter acres of asphalt underneath the buildings that are not going to be seen that creates a greater
open space and a more walkable community.
What we see in the brown, kind of the -- that's the orange, is the independent living. And we'll
show you some images of that as we move along.
What we see in the brown is when they step down to three-story over parking. The commons is a
two-story element, one story porte-cochere, and that's two-story.
As we move around the site, these are the three-story villas, and what we have are ba~ically car
ports, carriage houses for parking that create courtyards that are an abutment to the entire Lakeside
community. The health center, which is the home for skilled nursing, memory care and assis1cd living is all
two-story.
And again, we've nestled in the service. And the service and the wellness component of this project
is one that is shared, you know, obviously by the entire community. And the maintenance and service areas,
all one-story. It's nestled between the independent living north and south to the health center.
We had looked -- obviously we, as designers, we've explored countless numbers of schemes and
solutions to this site in how to make it work and how to create the -- you know, and reach our goals.
We had actually even looked at flipping the project where we had, you know, utilizing that drive
along this side and bringing service in on this side. The issue and the challengethaLwehave is that by
doing so then we'd be taking the taller buildings, the four-story over parking, and putting them up against
Bridgewater Bay and on that northeast corner on Lakeside. But by being able to bring in the service
between the two that we're able to keep our lower scale buildings more compatible with those building
heights that are in those areas.
So, you know, we've got the two-story -- the two-story, one-story, three-story over parking,
Page 26
._-->--_.~
16 I 1" A 5
August 6, 2009
four-story over parking which is not -- there will be views. And we've got images that show those views.
Now that we've seen the site, this is an aerial rendition of the site looking west to east. As you can
see, this would be Lakeside, Bay Water (sic) and Walden to the -...inJl1.is area, with Orange Blossom Trail.
It's about a walkable community. It's about walkable views. It's the water's edge. It's about
Mediterranean architecture. Not as building facade, but truly authentic Mediterranean Spanish colonial
architecture that's about planning.
And there's a variety of building heights. We made a conscious decision at the beginning of the
project that we were not going to do a three or four-story linear site that would get our density on the site
completely across, backed up to our setbacks. That doesn't create the kind of community that I think that
our neighbors want, nor is it the kind of community that we're looking to as far as a sustainable and
walkable community that is not dependent on the automobile.
And basically our concern and one of the issues that we're dealing with is that you are a
handicapped person in Naples if you do not have an automobile. You can't get anywhere. There are a lot of
communities, my father included, and he lives in Imperial up the street, you can't even get into your own
community without having an automobile. You can't get your mail, you can't go golfing, you can't go to the
clubhouse, you can't go to the pool; you've got to get in your car. And that's what we're trying to prohibit
with this type of planning. It's anti-suburban planning.
As we move through the site, and I'll -- just again, these are the independent living wings that step
down to the commons with dining, a bistro, cafe, with wellness, spa, natatorium, fitness. And then we see
the health center in the background with the three-story walkup. These are a different type of housing,
different type of scale. And the one-story carriage house. Then it's an abutment to Lakeside.
This would be an image as you're looking at the entry walking -- let's see, you would be walking
from east to west on Orange Blossom.
Again, this is a gated community, but we're not trying to make it look like a gated community.
That's why we're keeping things low, transparent. That when you see the site plan, that the commons
building is pulled back off the street with the embraced arms of the independent living, the actual common
space. And the entry to the building is actually two-story glass where you can visually see through the
project onto the lake, even if you're standing on Orange Blossom Trail. Again, it's being a front door to the
community and not turning our backs on the community.
Whoops. I can't drive this thing.
This is more or less an aerial view showing along Orange Blossom. You can see the independent
living wing. You can see the commons, kind of the entry stage to our site. Beautifully landscaped. Using
and trying to create -- which was a real challenge, the site's basically a burrow pit with not much vegetation
to it. But creating instead of -- that burrow pit being a challenge, we decided to reshape it and use it as an
amenity to the site and pull the community center back. And again kind of using these independent living
buildings in an active side of the project, which is on Orange Blossom Trail, you know, to kind of embrace
the resident as far -- and as well embrace the people in the community.
This is the interior of the site. Again, you know, what we're -- we talk about walkable communities
and common areas and outdoor spaces and health. This is one thing that our clients are really looking for
these days. It's not about a therapy to get your knee fixed, this is about wellness, it's about spa, it's about
physical activity, it's about engaging yourself in the outdoors.
What we have done and I have personally have worked on projects, the most efficient senior living
project is a high-rise tower. The most functional type of project is you have a common space in the middle
and you have pinwheels of wings, you know, spurring off of it. That's the most functional. But it has
nothing to do with wellness and it's institutional. And our goal is to not only maintain but transcend the
quality and dignity of life to our aging population. It's not about being an institution.
Page 27
Atftsf6,~o~ 5 . I
This shows just a snapshot of the villas along the Lakeside. It -- you know, creating -- and again
using the car as a challenge, but creating the courtyards where it's not asphalt, that the car could actually
drive onto a courtyard space so it becomes a quasi-pedestrian traffic for a few cars.
This is a little closer up. The tower in the background is -- you know, we've got lots of activities
that are outside. We've got an indoor natatorium. I think you saw an image that Steve had done, that's the
type of scale we're talking about indoors. We have outdoors, we have outdoor dining, places of shade,
exterior terraces for dining on the second level as well.
And again, it's engaging the community in the population. Because I don't know if you've ever been
in some of these communities, that it's like who's here. You don't see anybody walking around. Well, you
have to have a reason for people to be in places. And you'd be surprised, one of the most active places in
these communities are the hair salon, the card room and the postal. And we even on purpose do things like
we don't deliver mail to people. We want people to get out and be active and be active without their car.
Again, just kind of an overall site.
Okay, now, let me address -- I don't know ifI -- I can barely see it myself. This is to address the
concerns that we've seen as far as the public; you know, as far as height and density goes on the site. And
we've created some images and some building sections that are fatherly accurate that will show if you're
standing -- well, I think what we can do is we can start with Lakeside and work our way clockwise.
We've got a few shots just looking interior to the site. And where you see these cones of -- these
red cones, we're showing some images of a photograph that was -- somebody standing at that spot, and then
later applying with the computer what you would see with or without, and also putting in a landscape
buffer.
And it's fairly accurate, because it was -- like again, it was done on computer. I don't always trust
computers, so there's always intuitively is this right or is this wrong.
And the other thing that I would apologize is you're seeing buildings on a computer that are not
developed. And people see computer images and they think well, that's the final project, when in fact it's
not. What the project really is are these hand-drawn sketches and images that we're showing you. But we
had to develop computer models to show you, which are very sterile and they're not indicative of to where
this project is going to end up. And it will be much better.
Okay. Now, first, I'm going to start at Lakeside. And right where this line is, is what we call a
section. For those of you who don't know what a section is, it's like cutting an apple in half and peeling it
open and seeing what's inside. And it gives you perspective ofthe length.
Here we are at a Lakeside with parking, showing their asphalt, their landscape buffer, their--
there's a screen wall here. What we're showing is an additional landscape buffer and basically what we
have, which is the one-story parking. It steps up to the three-story villas. And we are about 84 feet back.
We're well within the setback.
Now -- and if you want me to come back to these, I will. Because this sometimes gets a little
confusing as we're walking around the site.
I'll go back to the -- these are views. In the blue cones these are just views as we're walking down
the street looking at some of the ambience and aesthetics and landscaping of the Lakeside project.
Next view is we were standing -- and I have to go back to it again. If -- we're going to show you
two views. If you're standing here looking at ou!" project, and if you're standing here looking at our project,
the before and after. And basically you can see the three-story, you'd pick up the top floor and you'd see
some roof, if you're standing in that precise spot on the other side of the parking.
Next image, we are looking down the end of that traffic corridor where there was -- and you're
actually starting to pick up some of the health center. And that's what you see today, and that's what you
would see as the project is complete.
Page 28
16 I ti A 5
August 6, 2009
If it's okay, I'll move around and show you the other sides of the project.
Let's talk about Bridgewater Bay a minute. We've got an image -- if you're -- we've got some
images showing you that they've got a pretty good buffer themselves without us enhancing it. They've got a
high wall that they've got fig ivy on it, that's pretty neat. And I think we're showing a shot. Again, that cone
vision, picking up the two-story health center, and over to the -- we've got a three-story to four-story over
parking independent living unit.
And then we're going to just take some shots looking where the blue cones are. Again, this is a
section if you were in Bridgewater Bay. And, you know -- and this is scaled and this is graphically correct,
showing the landscape buffer, what's on their property, and kind of gives you a feel for the distance
between the two. We've got actual footage and numbers, if you need them.
Again, that's their screen wall. That's standing on their property.
And then we can go to -- that's another shot. Site photo. This is with -- you know, when we do our
landscape buffer. I mean, that's the -- what their -- what exists right now. We'd come in and be doing our
landscape buffer, which is required, which we're going to be going beyond what the code minimum is. But
starting to get an idea for the landscape buffer.
All you can see on the two-story health center. I mean, if you can pick up the orange there, all
you're seeing is basically rooftop of the two-story. And the way it was picked, you don't even see the
independent living over to the south side.
Go down to Walden Oaks. And this was a hard one to capture, but just bear with me.
Again, we've got some photos just standing between the units. We didn't actually ask anybody if
we could get in their unit and take pictures from their window, but we did sneak in back here and take
some shots. And we'll give you two shots of the section and again the site.
This is Orange Blossom in this area, showing the one-story. And then as you can see, you know,
there's been this discussion about five-story, and, you know, I guess with semantics we're using. We call it
four-story over parking. It's five story. It can be defined as five-story.
But this section I think is a good indication of what we are doing. We do -- you know, we can't
submerge the parking only so far. We all know that the water table in Florida is pretty high, and we want to
stay above it. So that floor plan -- I said the two and three-quarters acre of asphalt that we're putting
underground, it is relatively similar to the existing grade. So to say it is submerged would not be fact. What
it is, what we are doing is we have pulled the roads off of it where we can get a four-to-one slope from the
sidewalks, or from anywhere on the site we can get a four-to-one slope and basically berm up as a
minimum halfWay up that garage. That garage that we're calling underground parking, even though -- and
then on top of that then we're going to have substantial landscape.
So visually we're trying to hide the cars. We don't want the cars, and we don't want -- we want the
buildings to appeal to everyone. But again, we want the automobile to be subordinate to this community.
That's one of our primary drivers. And if we were to take that asphalt out, yes, we could drop the buildings
down, but we'd be adding asphalt. And so that's the site section.
And out standing between one of the units -- and these buildings are a little further back than the
others because we're looking across Orange Blossom Trail. And also, we've pulled the commons way back.
So kind of the four-story over parking is kind of -- the way we've got it on our site is it's kind of equidistant
from all three sides with regard to the community. And that's one thing that we've been sensitive to.
The second picture is onto the right, again with the -- they've got a -- it's a -- they have -- Walden
Oaks has a five-foot wall with landscaping. And then obviously we're going to have ample landscaping at
our entryway. Because this one's taken pretty much right at the entryway. And that would be in the
background seeing the four-story over parking.
Again, there was another image that we were showing. And basically you won't see anything. You
Page 29
16 1 1 A 51
August 6, 2009
know, we'd say well, why don't you pick this angle or pick this angle. I think we could have picked what we
thought were accurate views and a good balance and, you know, I mean, we could have gone infinitely
showing views from every direction.
The final slide is -- this is Orange Blossom Trail. Again, this is a computer rendering. That's
basically the cluster -- there's a cluster of pines there. There's a few -- you know, there's a few palms that
we'll probably move. But in essence it's a scraped site of all vegetation. It's a burrow bit. And if you were to
stand directly -- kind of like in the middle of Orange Blossom, that kind of gives you a mass modeling of --
you know, again, I talk about embracing the community to the entry to this building, again, from our
resident as well.
I think I've got a larger shot. This was standing -- okay, we've seen that shot. That's just walking up
Orange Blossom Trail, you know, with our community on the site.
And that's a little bigger shot showing if you're just standing right across Orange Blossom -- or I
think if you're standing in the middle ofthe street from that shot.
lbis shows three-story. And the building steps up as we go in.
This is three-story over parking.
This entire area that we're looking in this vicinity is all common space. There's dining on the
second floor, we have a lounge upstairs, billiards room.
And again, you come through. There is a guardhouse, there won't be gates, but there is a
guardhouse. And there's a porte-cochere. And again, this will actually end up being a lot of glass that you
can see through the community into the lakeside as you're approaching the site. That's something that LCS
does frequently on their projects.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave that frame -- and I don't mean to interrupt your
presentation, but it's a -- on the right you show a four-story over parking, and on the left you showing a
three-story over parking?
MR. DAVISSON: Yes. And--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The plan we have in front of us shows a four-story over parking on both
sides. I'm just wondering why there's a difference.
MR. DAVISSON: Let me -- bear with me.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I can answer that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, our plan actually for that little area just shows four-story
not over parking. So in other words he doesn't have parking on that lower level in that last shot.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's true. That LU.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You see where he's got a line?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, the one--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's a four-story building at that point, no parking under.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. Okay.
We're fine. Sorry to interrupt you. I just wanted to make sure we understood it.
MR. DAVISSON: Those were the graphics that we did bring along with regard to, you know,
.Jmo.wing1hat the concern was setbacks, and also intensity and density ofthesite...___~._.
And I don't know if my time is up. Like I said --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, your issues are actually more relevant to this board. I'd just as soon--
if you've got more, I'd like to see your presentation finished out.
MR. DAVISSON: Well, this is the presentation part that addresses the concerns of the resident
with regard to building height. Not so much density.
Page 30
16 I ,*, A 5
i\ugusd5, 2009
You know, I think the issue of density is more conceptually -- it has to do -- and this is more of a
global discussion that, you know, what we as architects and planners, many are striving to do, at least, as
we're seeing our economy, we're seeing our natural resources, and we're seeing what works as
neighborhoods today. And it's been since the post World War II. You know, United States has really lost
touch with community and what a neighborhood is all about. You know, it's -- and most of Florida,
unfortunately, and I'm not talking about Naples. Most of Florida has been developed after World War II.
There's not a lot of history to Florida except in certain pocket areas that were developed, you know, prior to
the automobile.
And again, you know, it's become -- the state has become a model oflow density segregated use
and completely auto dependent communities. And, you know, we're trying to reverse the trend. And it's
happening allover the country.
And this concept is not a new invention. It's not something that we have figured out. It's simply
rediscovering what has worked. What has worked in European planning, what has worked in United States
planning prior to the automobile. You go into cities like Boston -- and I'm not talking about cities but
villages, communities, neighborhoods. It's not about turning your back to the street. It's creating walkable
communities.
And those communities require higher density. They need it to be viable. And I'm not talking about
high density. This is a moderate density. Urban Land Institute -- 14 units per acre is not high density in
accordance with the Urban Land Institute. You need to have 10 units per acre just to make things start to
work as far as creating a community.
Are we going to make a major impact in Naples? I don't know. You know, hopefully we'll --
hopefully we can do some things. We're not the first to do it in Naples. Hopefully this is going to set a trend
in people that want to live in a community, in a neighborhood, not a gated community.
I mean, obviously there are things that we have to address. The market, automobile -- we have to
address the automobiles.
But that was -- you know, that's the concept to this community type. And I explained what, if we
wanted to, just strictly apply, you know, zoning. And, that's -- you know, you ask why are we doing a PUD.
Frankly, nowhere in this country have they addressed, nor does this type of a community fit neatly under
any type of zoning overlay. Every time we go into a community and want to do a project type like this, we
have to reinvent the wheel.
And people are starting to catch on and cities are starting to catch on with zoning, because this is
truly a mixed use project. It's not an institution, it's not a nursing home. I -- frankly, as people ask, well, you
know, how do you go about designing communities like this? Well, it's simple. I would design this
community with the understanding that there are nuances with the aging population, with color rendition,
hearing, light sensitivity, mobility. I mean, there's all things as designers we have to consider.
But when it all comes to an end, I want to design a community that would be something that I want
to live in, or something my parents would want to live in or my family would want to live in. Not a nursing
home.
So that's the challenge that we're faced with. And that's what people are starting to expect today,
because enough of these type of communities are cropping up. And people can see this is the way I can live
and this is what I canllave. __ _ _____
And again, it's not about toning down, living in a senior community. It's about living your life on
and transcending your life after you retire.
Again, I went through other projects and things that we've been through. I'm passionate about this.
And I believe it's the right thing for Naples. And I hope this can take on (sic).
And I can get into work that we've done, discussion, what have you. But again, I just wanted to
Page 31
. ~ ~
16 '1 h:) ~b
August 6, 2009
address the issues that I thought that were relevant to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're going to have a lot of questions, and we'll probably get inl'
other aspects of what you would like to, you know, at least tell us about during our questioning process
here.
So I assume then you're done with your presentation?
MR. DAVISSON: I'm fInished. Thank you for--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, does that take care of all the presentations you have for your
group at this time?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. And I appreciate your tolerance for a rather long presentation. But I
think CCRCs are unique and you don't see them every day. So -- and we got, frankly, a lot of questions
about how they function operationally: Do you really provide skilled nursing at the end of the day, why i. it
only 25 percent? And I thought -- and I asked Steve to address those questions because I thought the
community needed to hear that and you needed to hear that. And if we went on too long, that was my cai..
And I apologize for that, but I think there was a lot of unknowns regarding this type of development. I
thought we needed to get into a detailed explanation.
And with that, as I said, those are the only three speakers that we had proposed. And we can
answer any other questions regarding traffic through other people who are here, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know there's going to be quite a few questions. And undoubtedly Brae! s
got quite a few. So why don't we just -- without him even saying he has a question, I'm sure that he does
Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'll jump in. And it's really for the architecture.
Without getting into the height, and I think you've shown the height rather well. It's the length (11
this building is kind of scaring me. It's a 1,200-foot long building. Orange Blossom is a pretty well public
readily used road.
I'm just concerned about how you're breaking it up. I know you're dropping some of your things
down. But I think the site plan we have shows about a 60-foot wide swath of building. But it will be wick r
than that because you're going to have porches and stuff on the outside of that.
MR. DAVISSON : Yeah, it's actually I think about 62 feet. And what we're doing -- and I'll go to
this elevation study that we did.
Whoops, I keep going in the -- I can't drive this thing.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go back a second to that section through it.
And see, the concern I have is that 60 feet is our parking standard. So essentially what you've
drawn on this plan is the width of the parking. There's a lot of building mass going to be projected outsi(j"
that.
So the scary thing to me is that it's a very long building and it's represented in the site plan as n(11
accurate to scale. So it's going to be bigger than that.
MR. DAVISSON: Let me just go to the architecture that we had done, that elevation study.
What we're doing is we're treating -- and I -- let me flip to this slide. You know, Mediterranean
architecture is very appealing I think to people that do not live in Florida that come. It's a trendy thing to ('0.
Mediterranean architecture is pretentious the way it's done today. It's been used, over-used and
abused. It's a facade on.a gas station, a strip shopping center. It's -- I said pretentious. And it.wasbrouglll
over to the United States by Addison Mizner at the turn of the century.
So, you know, what we're doing is we've got an American architect that studied Mediterranean
architecture, lived in Italy, so we're getting an interpretation and interpretation.
So now what we're seeing in the United States is Mediterranean architecture that is basically the
lowest common denominator.
Page 32
l~utt J 200f 5
And if you looked at -- and these images that you're seeing are all -- these are new structures. And I
think that when I -- I present these as, you know, showing what I believe, personally believe in what the
owner and as a group that we've kind of settled on, that this is a true real Florida vernacular.
You know, I live near St. Augustine so, you know, I get a glimpse of what's happened. I've studied
in Europe and studied in Italy.
But it's authentic. It's about planning, it's not about facade. So this is -- and these images, the ones
on the right are a project that I had done in Ponte Vedra, the Club and Inn. The others are not my work, but
I think they're great. They're just very simple.
But then we take -- that's kind of what appealed to the groups in the focus groups. That does have a
Florida vernacular, but it's not over the top Mediterranean, it's more of the authentic. It's about mass and
stone, of solid void relationships, detail in the right place, cast -- you know, wrought iron. Simple buildings,
but just done eloquently and sophisticatedly.
So, you know, then we kind of took that as, okay. Let's just take a section. This is a nondescript
elevation of our site. And basically, you know, what you'll see on a lot of, you know -- you know, a lot of
multi-family houses in Naples is, you know, basically applying things to it that make it look like it's broken
up when in fact this building, if you were to look, these are -- you know, these elements that are basically
when you go down the line of the elevation of anywhere on these independent living units, they break up
from zero to five to 10 feet back. So you're going to get a -- you're not going to get any expanse as far as
roof expanse as far as what's broken up.
These areas that you see where a lot of glass are what we call lanais. You know, we all know what
they are, they're the sunrooms. And we always go through this in Florida, creating a balcony that people end
up wanting most of the time want to screen in or enclose. So then you get one person that wants to enclose
it, the next person that doesn't.
Well, we found out through focus groups and through other projects that let's make those the
sunroom. And that's actually -- that little space on the elevation is probably the most used space in the
entire community as far as what people use in their units. They love that space.
Weare creating outriggers, these balconies, kind of creating a datum line, breaking up the scale
and creating an order, kind of almost an upside down order that you would see using these outriggers more,
you know, these things that hang out over the streets that you see in the European cities. And if you've all
been to St. Augustine's it's all over the place. Where you might have the top units. It's even different -- it's
not just stacking units on top of each other, it's even breaking the units up horizontally.
Again, this is the direction and the thought process that we're going through. We're not there yet by
any stretch ofthe imagination. This is just, you know, looking at how -- we've got, you know, a lot of
windows that will have, you know, touches of wood, using a more warm white monolithic feel to the
buildings but then using the woods in the appropriate place, and the stones.
Now, you know, I don't mean to, you know, step around your question, but are you talking -- when
you say across the entire site --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I could reword it, because it's actually simpler than your
answer was.
The concern I have is that on our drawing, our site plan, we're seeing 60 feet wide, 60-foot wide
ribbon. That's not our. sitep.!an. the one that we have that's goingto be the exhibit that goes forth a~_the_~__
official record. Yet I think these things are going to stick out quite a bit past that.
I think your section that you show, not the one that's in our documents, does show a lot. So in other
words, the building's going to be fatter --
MR. DAVISSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- than what we're seeing here.
Page 33
16111 A5
August 6, 2009
-;
MR. DAVISSON: Well, what -- the --let me -- okay, I know where to go with this.
We had actually done -- when we had done our first submission we were showing a footprint
without any development. Now as we have started developing the footprint and knowing the ins and outs
and here's a unit and here's a balcony, that we've actually pulled the building back to keep all those
elements out of the setback. So we've pushed the buildings back inside our property line further than your
original submission because of the undulation ofthe architecture. Does that make sense?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. So in other words, let's just stay with Exhibit C-I. Because
Exhibit C-l goes on through the future. All these conversations are somewhat left behind. That was it there.
And again, my first concern is that the building is 1,200 feet long plus. And we have to really make
sure that doesn't look like a 1,200- foot long building when we build this thing.
I understand the interconnection, I understand the power of that, I understand in the environment
we live that's actually good. But we have no setbacks shown. And like I said, the ribbon you're showing is
60 feet wide. That's our parking dimension, such that anything that's beyond that would make this look
even bigger. And the sections that you've been showing through your presentation show the parking lot and
then it shows balconies and things cantilevered off of that.
So again, the concern is we really have to make sure this doesn't look like a 1,200 foot building.
How are you going to do that?
MR. DAVISSON: In a couple ways. There's -- and it's not shown. Let me put my finger on it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to -- there's a walk-around mic you'll have to use, if you leave
the mic, because you have to be on record.
MR. DAVISSON: Right -- now, this is just one baby step of breaking this building up. But right
here we're showing this as a footprint when in fact it's not. The building will arch over the water. We're
connecting the two waterways. So there will be a two-story element, an opening that you can actually walk
through. And again, it's being able to see through the building. So we are going to break the building at
grade in this area, have an archway with -- you know, creating a canal right here.
The other is that -- and ifI go to this, is that we've got -- again, we're not completely settled on
every single unit type. But, you know, we've got four-story -- three-story over parking, four-story, two taIl
stories, a one-story, three-story over parking. So we're trying to break up, you know, the building. I mean,
it's about a variety of building heights and building roofs, rather than straight shot.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I still have some concern, because those are some rather long
walls.
Ray, let me ask a question: Is this going to go before the architectural review? Is this a commercial
creature or is this a --
MR. BELLOWS: This is not a commercial building. It's -- as Rich was saying earlier, it's a CCRC
type of institutional use, more like a community facility. But I believe they're committing to meet
architectural requirements of our code.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, and you probably didn't know this, on another project I was
working on, I met with Bruce McNall when he was here, and he was requiring that. Although he was
requiring that all elements of the CCRC go -- comply with the county's commercial architectural standards.
Not just the skilled nursing and assisted, the independent as well was going to be measured against
whatcyer:1he code requires under the commercial standards.. _._____ _.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So we can kind of trust that to help us.
Do me one favor, though. Pull up the section you had in the presentation. And it was in your slide
presentation.
And Ray, while I guess he's doing that, can you put C-2 on the overhead so we can just compare
one thing. And make sure --
Page 34
16Ajg~t' 6, ~O~
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't do them simultaneously, you know.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I know that. But he can flash them back and forth.
MR. DAVISSON: The section over Orange Blossom?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that probably is the one. There it is -- no, no, keep going.
MR. DAVISSON: I think it was the last one, of course.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, there it is.
Ray, and then show us C-2. The difference is there's a big difference between the two of those in
terms of coming out over the parking.
What would they be restrained to, the one that's shown here or would they be able to do what they
showed there? In other words, if you look at this section, there's a 65- foot wide ribbon matching what's in
the site plan, and not showing building projecting past that point.
MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure I understand your question.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The upper -- or even the lower left building, it shows four-story
over parking. The outer face of that wall is the outer face of the parking lot.
Now, if you go back -- if you can flip the image back, the -- see the difference, the parking? This
thing is going eight, 10 feet past the parking.
MR. DAVISSON: Yeah, it's wider. And again -- I guess maybe I'm not understanding. We have--
when we were talking about that setback off of Orange Blossom on our property, first of all, you've got a--
that's from a civil engineer, excuse them. But that was just a one-line diagram before we started developing
the project. As we started developing and we did undulation where of this long linear building that we're
talking about is not a straight that's indicated, it has articulation. And we've pulled that articulation back so
the outmost articulation of the building falls within the same line as that drawing that you have in the
exhibit.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But the reason I'm concerned about that not being true is
that that scales to 60 feet. Sixty feet is our minimum double loaded parking like you're showing here. So, in
other words, there's no way you could do that basement less than 60 feet to achieve --
MR. DAVISSON: Oh, oh, I'm sorry. The building -- the parking is actually -- it has more to do
with the units than does the parking. The parking's like 62 and a half feet wide, 63 feet. And that has to do
with the units above.
And what's happening outside of that with balconies and lanais and things that we're cantilevering
out have nothing to do with the parking below.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Again, I'm just trying to -- I think that the scale we're
looking at on this site plans, these are smaller ribbons of buildings than reality. But let's move on.
The -- Rich, do you know the difference between the grade and the mean elevation of Orange
Blossom Road? And again, it's the actual height. Because it's actually measured off of that and not off -- as
shown on this drawing. Unless we I guess restrict it to be shown as this drawing.
MR. COLE: Terry Cole with Hole-Montes, for the record.
The elevation of Orange Blossom Drive is approximately 13, elevation 13. And the elevation under
the buildings with the parking is also going to be approximately elevation 13, which is the -- based upon
the 25-year storm. The elevation of the minimum finished floor of the buildings is going to be around
elevation 14, which is basedupolUlIOOcyear storm.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So this drawing dimensioning the actual height will be
probably correct. It's not like the site's going to go down and you're going to come out and measure it off of
Orange Blossom, which would be higher.
MR. COLE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks.
Page 35
~.. :)
16 i 1 II I).
August 6, 2009
Then I guess the only other question is the flipping of the site plan. I'm not so sure that doesn t
work. You're right about -- well, actually, I think it would put the massing of the buildings almost the same.
So if the neighbors are so concerned about having the service end on that site, what is the problem with
flipping it? Because it would bring it over towards commercial and everything else.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: From a service delivery standpoint we will have about 10 trucks a we~k
making deliveries. They come -- the bread truck comes once a week. You know, so from a delivery
standpoint there are minimal deliveries through the week to bring stuff to the site. So it's not going tc be a
frequently used service entry.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it would be at your staff entrance, it's the activity ofthar And
actually there's stuff being taken out of the site. You have waste pickup, stufflike that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that was included in the number of deliveries. The trash coming. Se'
from that standpoint, it's not our -- it's not going to be our -- I'm sorry, Mr. Schiffer, I just want to confinn it
because I thought it was correct. The employees will be using the main entrance to get there, not the seD'ice
entrance. So that's the deliveries for--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And where will they be parking then? In front of the commcns?
Or don't they go around -- isn't that larger parking lot for the staff, over by the AL --
MR. DAVISSON: Most of the -- the parking that's underneath the building will be more of
assigned parked. The parking outside will not. However, that will probably be more of an operations thing.
We've always seen because of these type of communities and the number of car counts diminish over time,
it's kind of a park as you can. But they will probably park employees on the -- my guess is once this tbin:s's
up and running, they probably want employees to park along Bridgewater Bay side.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Okay, Mark, I'm done, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Other questions from other Planning Commission members (of the
applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody has any other questions.
Okay, well, I do. Let's turn to C-I, the site plan. You have a deviation that you're requesting, or J
should sayan objection from staff, that there's no pathway and sidewalk along the proposed road to the
west side of the site. Why wouldn't you put a pathway or sidewalk along that road?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Make sure I'm talking -- are we talking about -- can we just call it the
Lakeside road?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that the road you're talking about?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Why wouldn't we?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because that's going to cost us another 10 to IS feet of our site to put ill a
bike path and sidewalk to accommodate that access for Lakeside. And when dealing with trans -- talkmg to
transportation, their primary concern was getting cars out of Lakeside at a second entrance. Because they do
already have the ability to get to the sidewalk that's on Airport to get to the church or any shopping that's
there. It was a vehicular concern for transportation. "__ ,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'1l probably get back to that. I wanted to hear your explanation.
The maintenance facility that you have in the west, the -- actually the northeast corner. As yon
know, there's -- because I told you this already, and I know you're proposed to add it today. In your PUD
language there was no provisions for the maintenance facility --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we --
Page 36
161 [, A5
August 6, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so that's going to be added as an accessory use, I take it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why did you pick that location for that use, being that it's probably more--
it's closer to more residential there than it would be in an exactly flip-flop position on the other side of the
site. There you're up against two roads and no residential neighboring communities. Just out of curiosity.
Because the maintenance facility operates at usually odd hours compared to other operations.
MR. DAVISSON: Other than the adjacency to the service area, there's no other reason.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maintenance -- what's maintenance got to do with the service area?
Basically maintenance is lawmnowers, street -- repairs and things like that, right?
MR. DAVISSON: Well, it's basically just again proximity. The maintenance and service are two
functions that go together. You know, if somebody's got -- somebody from the inside service area's got to
cut the grass, you know, it's the shortest distance to get the equipment that he needs.
But I see your point, why would you put it there. And I'm sure we can deal with that. That could be
moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your parking, you have 379 spaces required, but you're providing 608.
That's like 62 percent greater than what's required, or some number like that. Why do you have so many
more parking spaces? Especially if the parking after a while actually depreciates, doesn't increase.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: The parking is broken up such that the exterior spaces are
approximately 213. There's 80 in the garages and approximately 315 under the buildings. And based upon
the demographic studies that LCS has done, they typically know that when a couple moves in initially they
typically will bring two cars. And usually after a year they'll sell one of their cars because they find that they
don't use them.
But based upon demographics and historical projects that they've done, and they've done many, as
Mr. Nornes has previously mentioned, this is the number of spaces that they feel that they need.
And also, some of these spaces are going to be used for golf carts just for travel within the interior
of the community.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you sell the -- are the spaces sold to those people that -- units in their --
typical condominium, for example, you can buy parking spaces. And they're required by code, but if you
wanted extra space or more than the code's required or whatever, you can actually purchase them. Are these
spaces being sold with the units?
MR. DAVISSON: It depends -- and Steve might be able to talk to this. I believe when you have a
pack -- it's a package where you get the space underneath the building. And the spaces outside I don't
believe are going to be assigned.
What we have seen, and again, this is more intuitive other than, you know, planning, is when these
communities start out and they -- people are bringing two cars in, that's what they're used to. And after
about the first generation, seven, eight years, people sometimes keep their cars, but they're never used. They
just sit. And then, you know, they might wise up.
So what's happened, and like I use Vicar's Landing, which was one of the first projects we did
that's 25 years old, we have added 30 assisted living, we've renovated and added skilled nursing and we've
actually added some independent living without having to add parking. Because the parking that had
.... dirnin\~hed is now in retumllii,>>,!:,-\'e added onto the site. So there are times that, you know, the parking i&.m
being removed, you know, later on when it's -- when the community matures.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could this project survive with say 40 less spaces? Is that a deal
breaker to the project?
MR. DAVISSON: I'm going to have to let the owner answer that one.
MR. NORNES: As Craig said, besides that, based on our historical usage and what we see, if we
Page 37
h\r1 A5 l
l~ust It, 2009 .
need to reduce 40 parking, it would put a crunch in initial phases, but that's something we would look at if
that's so important to move this project forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Both of you guys got something to say. Ms. Caron first, then Mr. -- I've still got to finish my
question where I was going with the parking, but go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I just heard a comment made that I wanted to follow up on.
What are these future phases we're talking about?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There are none.
MR. DAVISSON: What you're seeing on the plan, ma'am, is the project in completion.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There are no future plans other than what you have here. I think he was
talking about other projects where when things changed they were able to do it because -- in other
communities, not this community. This is it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, Mark, you said something, and then it made me think.
you're talking about flipping the property. And then this maintenance building. And then all of a sudden I
started thinking of some other issues that came up about refuse pickup, garbage pickup and garbage trucks
and so on and so forth. And then I thought well, you've got that Lakeside road, you have this service
entrance.
And I'm just -- where's all the garbage pickup going to happen? Because, you know, it seems to
happen 7:00 in the morning and--
MR. DAVISSON: You know, that's -- you bring up, is it Brad -- brought up a good point. And
that's something that we had looked at, you know, going through a series of, you know, many design
schemes was we had looked at that whole component being, you know, to the west and basically flipping
the site.
Again, we were looking at I think, you know, maybe we weren't talcing everything into
consideration. We were looking at the health center being a two-story rather than -- you know, we were
finding the lower scale buildings, you know, to put up against Lakeside.
Now, obviously the service -- and it is something that operations is -- total control of is when
refuse comes and goes. I think, you know, for us to explore or to basically take the site as we know it today
-- as it's presented today, and if that's something that the residents -- our neighbors would rather see, that's
something I'm sure we would consider.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who asked the question?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I did. That's fine. That's all, thank you. I just didn't -- you know,
they're pretty noisy things, those garbage trucks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a very short question.
This project first was approved in 1998. Why wasn't the sunsetting part of it in, since it's been
almost II years?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which project are you talking about?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, the original.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're talking about one.oft.1}e adjoining PUDs. YealymcLboth--
they're very close to sunsetting, or one has already --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is roughly -- approximately this portion in this direction is within I call
it Bridgewater Bay. That's not the right name -- Oak Grove PUD. So that is already in a PUD that is
probably well over 90 percent built out. So that would not be subject to sunsetting. And then roughly this
piece to there is in a PUD that has sunsetted, okay? Does that answer your --
Page 38
16\r1 At;
"-ugust 6, 26'~g"
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But that doesn't -- in other words, that doesn't affect what we're
doing here today.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, because what you do, one way to get out of sunsetting is either to
amend that PUD or create a new PUD. So we are addressing the sunset issue. We can't do anything on that
PUD right now, that's why we're going through this process.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: I just wanted to make another clarification. The remaining PUD will still remain
sunsetted.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, back to the questions I was asking.
The maintenance facility. You acknowledge that could be moved to the other side of the project.
You acknowledge that you could live without 40 spaces.
See the parking spaces south of the maintenance facility along the east side ofthe project? There's
40 spaces there. So if you took those 40 spaces out and you moved the maintenance facility to the east side
of the project, you'd have room to take care of the deviation that staffs been asking for in regards to -- I
shouldn't say clarified, but get the deviation resolved in regards to the path that you would need along the
north-south road, which I think you said now you want to call it the Lakeside road. Right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just shift your whole site over for the depth of the spaces that you've
taken out on the east side of the project.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me understand where the 40 spaces you're talking about are. Because I
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look where the maintenance facility is. South is towards the bottom of the
page. I know you have a problems with directions.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are you talking about these are the 40 spaces?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't count the spaces, so I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought you were talking about in this area and that's what -- so I didn't
want to give the wrong answer.
Terry?
MR. COLE: The spaces that are on the eastern side of the site are primarily used by staff. That's
where the staff primarily comes in, the workers. And it's important to have the spaces over by the commons
and health care area, because that's the proximity of where they're going to be working primarily.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, there's other empty spaces in front of the buildings over
there, but that's just -- that's a planning issue that we can get into at our deliberations.
During the neighborhood informational meeting there was a comment made on item six on Page
20 of the staff report, and I'1l read part of it to you. It says, the petitioner stated that if the interconnect road
was built, it would need to be built by the Lakeside community. Then a parenthetical: As noted in this
report, the petitioner has since agreed to build the road. The Lakeside participants were very receptive to
that answer, as they did not want the interconnect road built.
Does that mean that they don't -- they didn't mind being responsible for building it because they
would never build it because they didn't want it built? Was that what that paragraph's saying?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me give you a little -- I've got to take a step back history-wise.
When we first met with the manager for Lakeside, we went and said we were willing to provide for
interconnectivity, but they were going to have to build their own road to make that happen.
Page 39
16 11 ~5 ,~
August 6, 20lW .
The response based upon that was we're not going to spend the money to build the road so we don't
need it. That was the context of my comments of we're not going to build the road for Lakeside.
Subsequent to that neighborhood information meeting -- I don't see him in the room -- Mr.
Casalanguida --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, he called me this morning, he said he was too afraid to show up
today.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, he used his art of persuasion, and thus we agreed to build the road for
the Lakeside community.
I don't know with that change whether the Lakeside community wants it with the obligations to
now have to maintain it. I don't see maintenance being a huge expense over a period of time. I can't answer
the question about how Lakeside feels about the road when it's our expense.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the way that this deal supposedly worked out is you all will
build the road at some point that we've still got yet to establish. I know you have it before building permit,
but I can assure you I'm going to be talking about approval ofSDP.
But the road's maintenance is up in the air. You don't -- there's no agreement on any table that I
know of that says that road's going to be maintained by anybody at this point.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. And if -- again, we are committed to building the road if Lakeside
will agree to maintain it. And if anybody else decides they want to use that road, then the maintenance costs
will need to be shared. But we didn't think it was fair to obligate us to both build and maintain a road that
we're not utilizing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so if Lakeside decides they won't maintain the road, then the road
doesn't get built.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And ifit doesn't get built, what happens to that property? I guess--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It becomes green space.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Green space. Okay.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ijust -- I can see, you know, every one of these things being
issues from parking to maintenance facility and to that Lakeside road. If the property would be flipped,
everything would be solved.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Mr. Wolfley--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Because you could use that road, they could use the road.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, our thought was the concern from our neighbors was going to be --
mainly Bridgewater Bay at this point. Because I don't think it really will affect Lakeside because we've
already put three-story next to three-story on Lakeside.
We thought the way we had the site designed, we were putting, you know, two-story and
three-story next to Bridgewater Bay. And the flip may result in a little bit more four-story and definitely
some three-story over by Bridgewater Bay.
If Bridgewater Bay would rather flip that, then the service entrance road issue goes away. We'll
then be using that road so .we. may as well be maintaining it for Lakeside as well.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's my point.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But, you know, if that's the consensus that will make the community more
comfortable with the project, that's something we would --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, with a few more trees but a heck of a lot less traffic, I don't
know that they would have -- I don't know, I'm not living in Bridgewater Bay, but again, with more trees,
Page 40
y
1~}~12~(
with the traffic, I would think was what they'd be more concerned with than potentially 10 more feet of
view but with trees blocking. I don't know.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Honestly, we tried -- as Craig showed you, we tried to be very sensitive by
putting projects where we did. If there's a better way of doing it by flipping the site, we're amenable to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to Exhibit A, which is the beginning of the PUD.
On the very first page of the PUD there's an opening paragraph that tries to redefine or define
continuing care retirement communities.
When I met with the applicant, I told him I don't think this should be there. I think the LDC is the
document that defines things. This actually brings in a lot of uses. They have a use table or use section in
there that defines their uses, so I don't think we need to open the door for misinterpretation by having a
paragraph that really is not essential to the document.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we're fine with deleting that. But Ijust want you to know, there is no
definition of a CCRC in the LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's references, you're right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's references. But no, we're okay. That was intended to let people -- it
was descriptive of what a CCRC is. But the permitted uses we've asked for are consistent with that
paragraph.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On -- go ahead, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just before you continue on. I'm not so sure that leaving that
commitment in the PUD wouldn't be helpful, if this project gets built, to the people who end up living
there. So I'm not so sure I want to take it out.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And, you know, that's a good point. We want everybody to know that the
use we're asking for is a CCRC, which would require all three of these types of uses: Independent, assisted
and skilled nursing. If you delete that paragraph, then I could probably legally come in and just do anyone
of these permitted uses and not do the others.
So whatever -- you know, that was the intent to make it clear we weren't trying to just do an
independent living facility.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean, I'll be chewing on that before the day's over, so -- I
mean, we all got to make that decision. So thank you.
Good point, Ms. Caron.
Under your Page 2 under B, indoor accessory uses, you have a large amount of what we would
normally consider commercial uses in this facility: Cocktail lounge, private dining, bank, business center,
art studios, beauty and barbershop, woodworking studio, convenience store, coffee shop, ice cream parlor,
beauty salon, and the list goes on.
I understand why you have these. I understand, based on the presentations we've heard how this
system operates. Just pointing out that there are a lot of commercial enterprises within this property being
proposed. And that will probably get to where I'm going in a few minutes. And I just wanted to make that
point.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I would agree that a restaurant and cocktail lounge is a typical
commercial use, but it's only our residents and guests who can use them. But I think like an art studio and
woodworking is more of a hobby.area, and I wouldn't consider those commercial uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you -- yours is a gated facility, so is everyone's registered guest
connected with some person living there?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The maintenance facility, you're going to add to Item C, I would assume--
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
Page 41
16 11 .iA 5
August 6, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- where it's missing?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, actually that -- we probably need to put that under B. Because I don't
know if that's an outdoor use. Is that okay?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as it's accessory use, that's fine. Just as long as it's in here
somewhere --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because we've got to have standards in which to apply, and the
standards only come if it's listed.
Under Exhibit F, which is your transportation commitments -- well, you know, I guess you're going
-- we have -- John's here so we'll be able to get into that with him then.
Everything refers to issuance of first building permit. We do things prior to the approval of the
SDP, and I'm not very comfortable with the first building permit as the trigger.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What we're doing, just so you understand, Mr. Strain, the -- I'm assuming
you're talking about the entrance road at this point?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number one, yeah, you can -- that's the--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The Lakeside road is number one.
That is being permitted as part of our SDP. What we're saying is we will start construction of it
when we get our first building permit. And at the two-year build. So it will be completed well before our
project is up and running.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's a two-year build?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The Phase I is basically going to take two years to build.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I thought you said that little road.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, no, no. That's what I'm saying, it will be completed obviously
before we have any of our COs issued. That's why we tied it to CO.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why aren't you tying it to the approval ofthe SDP?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it is being permitted as part of the SDP. We just don't want to start
construction of it until we get a building permit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Within 30 days of the issuance of the first building permit, the
developer shall provide a non-exclusive public access easement 24 feet in width along the west property
line and shall construct a two-lane access road.
So that means you get the building permit and then you're going to actually provide the public
access easement and construct the road. Is that what that says?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'm saying, why wouldn't you provide the public access easement
and start the road construction at the time of approval of the fust SDP?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, and this is a very specific PUD for this project. Until they have
enough pre-sales -- and Steve, correct me ifI'm wrong -- they will not get to the building permit stage. So if
they never get the pre-sales they need, the project will not go forward and we'll be back in front of you
again for a brand new PUD.
And the current property owner did not want to be saddled with commitments ifhe's going to have
to come back in the future potentially for their own PUD. '_"_' .
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means you're going to end up getting your SDP and you're going to
hold the SDP ready to get building permits based on sales, and the SDP is only good for a couple of years.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. It's critical to have the SDP as part of the pre-sale process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's going to own that road?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'1l be happy to give it to the county, but I have a feeling we are.
Page 42
16 11 I A 5
August 6, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can't give it to the county because it won't meet our minimum
standards. So I don't think the county could accept it.
The maintenance is going to be supposedly by Lakeside, if they agree to it. The installation is going
to be by you guys.
Who installs the full turning radius movement on the Orange Blossom roadway? Who pays for that
and who does that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The turn lane, is that what you're saying?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, on Orange Blossom you're going to have a full turning movement
intersection there. It's going to have a left and right turn out.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm going to need a few minutes to talk to Terry. I didn't understand that
explanation. Could we hold that question?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The impact fees. 5.A, the road impact fees will be paid once the SDP for
Phase I is approved, according to LDC provisions.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The COA for Phase I would be issued at this time.
How is that different than the process we currently go through? If you go in for--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then why do you have it here?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because what's critical is it's really -- what happens is we come in, we get
our Phase I SDP. The code currently reads you pay -- once you get it approved, you pay your impact fees in
five equal installments or until you pull a building permit. And at the time you pull the building permit you
pay the full amount related to that building permit.
Which we're fine with doing. It's when we -- but when we pull that first building permit we now
have to pay not only all of the impact fees for Phase I of the building, road impact fees for Phase I, we're
going to front -- we're going to pipeline our road building impact fees for Phase II, which is another
400,000 above and beyond what we would be doing related to Phase I so the county could do the
intersection improvements at Orange Blossom and Airport. And in addition we would be paying our fair
share on top of the impact fees of our cost of the intersection improvements.
So that's in there just to emphasize basically the pipe lining provisions we would be required to do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Item C, prior to the approval of the first building permit, developer
agrees to pay fair share of the Airport/Orange Blossom Drive improvements, not to exceed 5.31 percent.
Why again to the first building permit? Why not to approval of the SDP?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, the way we talked to -- again, the project is not a go until the
building permit is issued. And at that time when the project is a go, it's going to take basically two years to
complete the intersection -- well, to complete the building. The intersection improvements will take a much
shorter period of time to occur.
So we said to staff, again since the project is not a go until the building permit is issued, we'll give
you all that money that you're going to get and you have plenty of time to do the intersection improvements
...._befurewe're going to get COso
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to ask -- I've got some questions on your TIS and I need John to
kind of confirm some of the things we talked about. But before you go there, I have another issue I want to
ask you about.
You provided a series of projects, a whole list of them, and I heard mention two others that were
also CCRCs or similar that you believe were reasons why this project should be built. You started out with
Page 43
,
1611~A5
August 6, 2009
The Bridges at Gordon River, which is a proposed project along Golden Gate Parkway.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think the list is still here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The first project, the Gordon River project, is on what's called a
minor arterial highway in Collier County. There are six rankings of highways. The most intense is called a
principal arterial, the second is a minor arterial. Then they go into four levels of what are called collectors:
A rural major collector, a rural minor collector, an urban major collector and an urban minor collector.
So on the seven or eight projects you've talked about today, the Gordon River Bridge is on the
second most intense highway, which is a minor arterial. The Terraces in Bonita Springs is on U.S. 41, that's
a principal arterial. The Brighton Gardens is on Airport Road, that's a principal arterial. VanderbiJt Beach
Trust is on Vanderbilt Beach Road, that's a minor arterial. Napoli Village is on U.S. 41, that's a principal
arterial. The Carlisle is on Airport Road, that's a principal arterial. Moorings Park is on Goodlette Road,
which is a minor arterial. And Bentley Village is on U.S. 41, which is a principal arterial.
Now, if you go down that list and you look at the ones below the principal and major arterials -- or
minor arterials, you get to major collector and minor collector on rurals, and then you get to urban minor
and urban major. Urban minor collector being the least intense roadway in the county. Guess what Orange
Blossom is?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, I know what --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Orange Blossom is an urban minor collector. And I'm just wondering why
you would use for comparisons projects that were all built on arterials and try to justifY the building on a
collector of an intensity of .6 FAR.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, and I'1l tell you what I am -- fust of all, if you want to talk about
traffic impacts, which I think is the appropriate discussion when you're talking about roads, our traffic
impacts are equal or less than we could do on single-family on that road.
So if you're talking about whether the road itself can handle our project, it can handle it. There's
nothing in the code that says this type of use has to be on a certain type of road. So from a transportation
standpoint, the road can handle the project. And I think that's what you've got to be concerned about, not
the road classification. These other projects -- I couldn't tell you what the classification was for
Goodlette-Frank Road back when Moorings Park was built. I know it's not the same road that's there today.
I couldn't tell you what the classification was for Airport Road when the Carlisle was built. It's not the road
that's there today.
But the point is can the road that we're proposing handle the traffic generated from this project?
And the answer is absolutely yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the reason I went and looked at all this is because part of the
argument in the report was that the policy changed by the BCC was to allow .6 FAR. I don't believe there's
been a policy change. I think there's been a case-by-case review of the projects that they've considered for .6
FAR, and one of the considerations was the intensity of the road system that they're adjoining to. That's the
concern I have for this project.
Now, I've been through your -- I've heard your presentation today, and there's no doubt that as time
goes on we're going to need more CCRCs. The baby boomer generation is getting older and they're the
majority of the population. That's going to happen. Your LCS looks like a good manager, the product in a
lot of ways looks great. And I thinkthat the FAR does need to. bexeviewed. But I think also we have to take ,_ _
the context and the location in which it's applied.
You previously said that master planned communities can have a variety of intensities within them.
And you're right. But they're PUD'd and designed that way. And when people buy in one of those, they
know what different densities and heights they can expect within that community.
When you go along a typical zoning project like this one is, and it's -- right now it's agricultural
Page 44
16 11'; A 5
August 6, 2009
zoning alongside existing facilities, existing PUDs, I doubt there's a lot of anticipation in anybody's mind
that the intensity that you're asking for in the FAR may have been applied in the manner you're asking for it
to be applied on in this location.
Just making that as a statement because it's concerning and there's been an intensity and density
issue. I know you all are not willing to budge on those heights or the density, but I think that the public's
concern about that is justified.
And I think density, as the architect was saying earlier, he said well, allover the country the
densities are higher, basically. Well, you know what? I think that's relative to the community standards in
effect to whatever community you go in into this country. And if the community standards in Collier
County are to be less, then that's what we have to live with.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, may I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- make some statements on that?
I know that this section of Orange Blossom from Airport to Livingston is proposed to go to a
four-lane road, which I believe will change that classification to, is it -- what type of -- urban major
collector? Okay. So that's been part of the long-range transportation plan for quite a while.
So if people really did do their homework about what could go on around them and read the
comprehensive plan about what could happen on agricultural land in the urban area, I would, one, be
shocked if it's more than five people. And two, what I -- what you and I discussed was I think .6 has been
justified because of the types of amenities.
What it comes down to is, is this -- have we properly designed this project to be compatible with
our neighbors. The road can handle it. And we have dealt with this through setbacks and landscaping. And
you know what? If the answer is that Collier County doesn't want CCRC's in this part of Collier County,
okay, that's a policy decision to be made by the Board of County Commissioners. There are -- I can't find
one, but the minute I say there aren't any, someone's going to say well, what about this. I can't find too
many 30-acre sites west of 951.
Now, when you start talking about west -- you get in a more finite area of west of Livingston Road,
I don't know any of those. But you've got to look at where's the market, is there a need, have we properly
designed the project of being compatible with our neighbors. I think the answer is yes. Others may
disagree. And, you know, that's the way it's going to have to be.
There are other -- if you see what the policy decision has been for density for other projects that are
not even CCRC's. The ones that I discussed with you or the first one, the Bridges, not approved yet, is a
CCRC. The second one is a CCRC not in Collier County. Has been approved. Brighton Gardens is not a
CCRC. Vanderbilt Trust, not a CCRC, that's an independent living facility. Doesn't even go to the assisted
level. Napoli Village, independent and assisted. It's not a CCRC. And the Carlisle is independent and
assisted, not a CCRC.
So there is a total lack, other than Moorings Park and I believe Bentley Village, that exist for
CCRCs in Collier County. And I think the demographics are showing the need.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all the comparables that you gave us to compare to now you just told us
aren't comparables anymore.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: NO,.whatl.ccandl.said that all along, Commissioner Strain. I said to you
that these are senior housing projects, and that senior housing projects have a higher density than your
standard residential project. And that's how I started the presentation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To say the county doesn't want any facilities like this in the north end of
the county I think is wrong. There's -- a variety of the examples you used are in the north end of the county.
So --
Page 45
16 r. 1
,. J3'
~ "
n )
August 6, 2009
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which one's a CCRC at the north end of the county?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, you can call it whatever you want, Richard. It has dements of
the same criteria that you've got in this. I mean, you've got your VanderbiJt Beach Tmst that you came
before us for that was approved, you've got the one up on --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Independent living facility.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 41 just north ofInunokalee Road. I don't remember which one that was.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Napoli, independent and assisted living facility. No skilled nursing in either
one of those facilities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much skilled nursing do you have in this one, go?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have 80 beds. That's 80 more beds than--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Out of 420?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Not of skilled nursing.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have 80 beds and I think, is it 45 skilled nursing? I've got to go back to
the first page. 45 skilled nursing, 15 memory and 20 assisted living beds.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John Pad -- I've just got some questions of John nov. on the trwlSportation.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good moming, John.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning, for the record.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't swear in the beginning?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I thought I did.
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say, he knows the rules pretty well. Or is it that you don't
trust the way he looks or something, you want him sworn in twice?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Just in case I didn't, I figured I'd cover the bases.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know she never asks Nick to do that.
You heard the discussion on the issuance of some of the standards or elements at SDP and building
permit.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your department's position on that?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: My director's position and my manager's position, our department's
position at this point is to follow along with what's been shown in the current document. We do not have an
objection to the language that's shown here for the timing on that, so -- but it is always at the prerogative of
the Planning Commission. We will follow whatever you'd like us to follow.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as the TIS that was provided by the applicant, I have a
concern on Page 5 of their TIS, it talks about trip generation. And their a.m. peak hour in a 48 is their
calculation. Yet we know they're going to have 140 employees, based on the report. A lot of those
. employees are not nursing or necessarily employees who help with individuals. They may be employees 0[,.__ _ .
the numerous number of commercial institutions or facilities they have within this place. I would expect
they'd be coming in early in the morning too.
Did you guys, when you reviewed this, take into consideration the accuracy of that 48?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Specifically, no. We went specifically with the trip generation that was
shown in the ITE handbooks. And it does not break that down by individual uses within the occupied units,
Page 46
.-
1 ~uLX6, 20~9 5
the CCRC use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the CCRC use and the ITE trip generation take into consideration all
the commercial uses such as this establishment's asking for?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I believe so, yes, it does.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it also take into consideration then all the employees within those
establishments?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I believe it does. I'd have to reread the d~cIiEtion, but I believe so, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if there's 140 employees and I don't know how many of those
would be split up between the commercial uses and the actual medical assistance, does 48 seem
reasonable?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Overall the general total on this is 115, two-way total. Then that would
be in and out at that p.m. peak hour, which does seem more reasonable when you look at 140 employees.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's no -- one of the things that I saw a note of is that there's a--
DCA was going to be created. And I know in discussions with you, can you tell us for the record what the
status of that is?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. For the record, that DCA is no longer being pursued. There are
other agreements in place based on the commitments made in the PUD. I'm sure Mr. Y ovanovich can
probably expand a little better on why the DCA idea was abandoned, but it has been abandoned.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure from your department that's satisfactory.
That's all the questions I have of the applicant at this time.
Does anybody else have any others? Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yeah, I don't want John to go, since we've got John up here.
I want to talk about this comparison. The available residential units, if this were built out at -- this
area were built out at three units an acre, it would have to be built out, correct, because it's in a TCMA?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'd have to double check. I don't believe Orange Blossom Drive is in
the TCMA.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So is it just the intersection?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, I believe it is just the intersection.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, so -- and because this doesn't touch the intersection at Airport
but everybody will travel there.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: And that's why we saw it a contribution to the intersection.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. So it would be at four units an acre would be the base.
Some hundred units of residential housing. And they're going to have 340 units of independent housing.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And you're trying to tell all of us that 100 units of housing -- 116
units of housing is the same or less than 340 units of housing?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Again, these are based on the ITE national average rates, the Institute
of Traffic Engineers. And in general when they do their surveys, they do look at these all throughout the
country. And the difference in trip generation rate per unit would typically reflect the internalized uses that
they have on this sort of a facility where they have their own commercial uses, their own post office, that
sort of thing. It reflects that those trips tend to stay internal through the community.JIS ilpp9Sed to going
outside of the community.
A direct comparison to single-family housing, single-family housing tends to have a higher trip
generation rate. In fact, for all housing units it tends to be one of the highest, if not the highest trip
generation rate per unit.
COMMISSIONER CARON: According to what's been offered here today, are the people who live
Page 47
16 I lA 5
August 6, 2009
in this development guaranteed a bank and a post office and an ice cream parlor and the laundry list? I
mean, IS --
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'm afraid I'm--
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that a commitment that they're going to have to be there?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to answer that one, as I'd have to
defer to the applicant. But it's not precluded, I don't believe.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I want to know if it's a commitment. I mean, are these trips really
going to be off the road or --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can guarantee you the food service, I can guarantee you the wellness
center, I can guarantee you the beauty parlor. The only one I don't think I can guarantee you is the bank. I
don't know if I'm going to get a bank branch that wants to come in to do that. But we obviously are going to
have our central post office and all of those things.
So the answer to your question is yes, I can guarantee you all those uses, except for the bank.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But we're talking about independent living units. So those
independent living people are not necessarily going to be eating three squares a day at your restaurant, all
right? First of all, you couldn't accommodate them all if they did, because --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure we can.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- I don't think you're going to have --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure we can.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- enough space here. But --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They don't all eat at the same time.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, the answer to your question is LCS has been doing this for many,
many, many years. I probably told you too much about LCS. But forget LCS, talk about all other
independent senior care housing. And the bottom line is, whether the Planning Commission or the public
wants to believe this or not, these people do not leave the site very often. Because they do eat in the dining
facilities, they do take advantage of the wellness center, they do take advantage of the entertainment that's
provided at night. The fact is they do.
And I have personally seen it because I've had a grandmother go into an independent living facility.
And she went in when she was about 78 years old when her husband passed away and she didn't want to be
in her condo anymore.
So the bottom line is independent living facilities, although they look like a condominium unit,
they do not function like a condominium unit.
And we have provided all those safeguards by the required list of amenities. And the traffic
numbers are the traffic numbers because the ITE manual has a professional survey of a bunch of different
CCRCs, and those are the numbers and they've been proved out by LCS's operations and everybody else's
operations.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, Richard, I can tell you that I've lived this myself with my own
parents in facilities like this. So I do know a little bit about what I'm talking about. And I'm telling you that
when people move into these places and are in the independent living areas, they're not going to be eating
every meal at that community facility. They will be driving, they w:i11 have to go to the supermarket, they
will have to go to the pharmacy. They don't get all their needs take -- the whole point is they're independent.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Commissioner Caron--
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- they will not get all their needs taken care of.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Caron, I didn't say that. What I said is those trips will occur
far less frequently than you will see in a standard condominium or single-family home. That's a fact. It is a
Page 48
16 11
ItS
August 6, 2009
fact. They do not make the same number of trips.
I didn't say they never got in their car. And they don't go in the peak. They're not out there traveling
between 7:00 and 9:00 in the morning. They're just not doing it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I totally will agree with you that, it's not at peak.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But that's not the discussion. That wasn't the discussion. The
discussion was total number of trips and how we calculate those.
And I think that the trip generation studies have not really caught up to reality is what I'm saying to
you. I think that when these initial trip generation studies were done, it was probably true. But as every year
goes by, you are talking about an aging population that is not aging nearly as fast as the generation before.
And as a result, not only are they looking for more things, but they're doing more things and doing more
things independently.
So that's my point, and it doesn't need to be debated. I know what you all have used for your trip
generation.
MR. TREESH: I'd just like to add one thing. For the record, Ted Treesh with TR Transportation.
We conducted the transportation study.
A CCR use in the ITE manual is a relatively new use to that manual in the past few editions, so --
but one thing that we did do back in last year, my fum did an actual count at Bentley Village, just to see
what that facility was generating, and compared it to the trip generation that's in the ITE manuals.
And what we found from that survey, and we surveyed Bentley over several days during the week,
we found that the morning peak hour trip generation that we used in our analysis was exactly the same as
what is in ITE. That trip rate was .18 trips per unit.
But what we found in the p.m. peak hour is that the rate that we surveyed at Bentley Village was
about 60 percent lower than what is in ITE.
So just from that one survey we did locally, you know, during the p.m. peak hour showed a much
lower trip generation than what we used in ITE. So I just wanted to offer that as a comment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
John, we need to kind of break for lunch, unfortunately. So one thing I wanted to comment, you
didn't know if this was in the TCME for the north? I've got the map from your department sitting in front of
me. That TCME starts at Pine Ridge Road and goes all the way up to our county line, and its eastern
boundary is 1-75. So it looks like it is.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, it would be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means you'd have a reduction from four units to three.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I would think. So unless you guys tell me differently.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are we talking about a traffic congestion area?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm talking--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And because we have access to Livingston Road we get that unit back
under the provisions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a northeast TCMA is what it is in.
MR.. YOV ANOVICH: TC --_ _. -_____
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: MA.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- MA. Okay. And if you wouldn't mind during the break, if! could have
Ted and I look at whatever the map is. Or is it in -- I brought the compo plan. So if it's -- if you'll tell me
what map it is in the compo plan we can probably get it there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here, I'll tell you in a minute. Well, it's on the county website, how's that?
Page 49
16 I 1 A 5
August 6, 2009
It's TCMAS map one.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: TCMAS?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: S, but it's a TCMA is the district. So there's no -- the map's not called
anything on this that I can see.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I believe in the transportation element it's like TR-7. Map TR-7--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Might be.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: -- transportation--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't pull it -- I pulled it from the website.
Okay, we've got to have staff presentation, questions, and we got to have members of the public.
And we certainly need the public input. I didn't think we'd be here this late this morning on this one issue,
but we have to take a break for lunch. We've tried not to in the past and it's turned out very detrimental to
this board. So I ask -- and to everybody else.
I'd ask that you bear with us and I am sorry to have to ask you to wait around till after lunch,
because we do value your input. But we're going to have to come back here at -- well, it would be 1:00
before we come back after lunch. Is that agreeable to everybody?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll break here until I :00. Thank you.
(Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, thank you for returning from lunch. It looks like we lost
some members of the public. I hope they show up.
Before we start on the presentation by county staff, I'd like to make a clarification on a previous
Issue.
We talked about the TCMA in the area that this Orange Blossom location is in. And it turns out
they are in a TCMA, but I believe there's not a unit deduction for that form of TCMA. Is anybody from
staff able to clarifY that?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I think I can help shed a little light on this. One of the planners back
there, Melissa Zone, I'd like to thank her for her help, she helped me look this up a little bit.
Policy 2.4, and it was Article 21 in the Growth Management Plan. It does state -- roughly it states
in the northwest TCMA if Policy 6.1 through 6.5 are met, and then transportation elements policies 5.7 and
5.8 are met, and if the development has affordable housing, then it doesn't require the density reduction,
okay.
Now, from the transportation side of things, I did go and verifY that yes, they do comply with
Policy 5.7 of the transportation element, as well as Policy 5.8. I don't have an opinion on the policies 6.1
through 6.5 of the GMP.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the word "and" was used in relationship to the affordable housing?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Richard's going to have affordable housing in this facility, I'm
sure.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, in the single-family homes, sure, we'll come in with another project
that's got affordable housing density bonus on-site, how about that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it looks like you would have a traffic deduction in this.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, that would be if we came in for a single-family project or multi-family
project that apparently did not include an affordable housing density bonus.
And I -- you know, I don't even want to go there, because that is an option anywhere in the urban
area, to come in with an affordable housing project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, J.D.'s got to talk to us about his staff report. Usually in staff reports
Page 50
16 11 A 5
August 6, 2009
we have an analysis of the density that would have been allowed in the site had the site not been requesting
deviations or changes through a PUD.
So maybe, J.D., you've looked at that, and if you have, maybe you can enlighten us. And I think it's
appropriate timing, because we're ready for staff presentation.
MR. MOSS: Thank you, Commissioner.
For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review.
As noted in the staff report, staff is recommending approval of this project, subject to the
stipulations of approval that have been recommended by staff, and also the developer commitments
contained in Exhibit F.
As also noted in that portion of the report, staff has recommended denial of several of the deviation
requests that the applicant has requested.
One of them, I'd like to retract, deviation number four. Initially staff was opposed to the provision
of this access roadway connecting Lakeside to Orange Blossom Drive because it was inconsistent with the
GMP. And transportation has since said that it will actually provide a public benefit. And as PUD districts
are required to provide some sort of public amenity, this could count as that.
The one objection staff still has, though, to this roadway is -- if! could explain the genesis of this
roadway. As Mr. Y ovanovich told you earlier this morning, the reason they didn't want to provide the
inter-parcel connection, pursuant to FLUE Policy 7.3, is because they didn't want -- they wanted to have
their project to be gated. But 7.3 of the FLUE says that projects are encouraged to provide inter-parcel
connections.
And it doesn't say shall, that's true, it says it encourages them. But the only reason that it doesn't
require them is because sometimes it's not feasible.
And in this instance we certainly had a project that where it would have been feasible. We had a
community to the north that wanted inter-parcel connection. All they needed to do was provide a stub-out
on the northern boundary oftheir property and they could have satisfied this requirement.
However, since they didn't want to do it, they instead proposed to build this access road adjacent to
the western boundary of the property. However, they still don't want to connect to it to provide inter-parcel
connection as required pursuant to the compo plan, and they still don't want to require side -- or provide
sidewalks, as required by Policy 7.4 of the FLUE.
So staff is still sanding by those recommendations of denial for those two deviations.
I also wanted to point out that they have informed me that there has been a condition added in the
development standards portion of the PUD document that would provide 20 percent more plant material
than the reduced buffer width adjacent to this access roadway.
Staff is okay with that. If they want to reduce the buffer from 20 feet to 15 feet on this project
boundary and provide the same amount of plant material in this reduced buffer width, that we would be
okay with that.
A couple other things that I wanted to comment on from the developer commitments, and just
basically from the PUD documents. I know there was some discussion earlier today about removal of the
introductory paragraph under Exhibit A. And Commissioner Caron pointed out that it might be valuable to
have that in there, and Mr. Y ovanovich said that if it wasn't in there, they could provide all independent
living unit&.or some other variety of housing types. -, - -
And I just wanted to show you that in the permitted uses portion of that exhibit they have
committed to providing the number of living units that we've been discussing today. So they are committed
to providing those skilled nursing facility units -- or beds and assisted living beds and the memory care
beds, and only the remainder of the 340 could be independent living units. So I think it would be okay to
delete that introductory paragraph.
Page 51
Ih11~A5
'1>..ug~ 6; 2009
I also wanted to point out that there's been talk about how there would only be 10 delivers a week
on that service road. And I just wanted to let you know there is no stipulation in the commitments requiring
them to provide 10 or less deliveries per week.
They've also talked about the architecture. As Mr. Y ovanovich pointed out, he and Mr. McNall had
already discussed meeting the architectural code with this project. And that's something the applicant has
agreed to put into the developer commitments.
There was also talk ofthis building being a lead certified building. I think silver was the status of
certification they were seeking. And Ijust wanted to let you know that there is no commitment to that
either. As well as the type of architecture, he said it would be Spanish colonial or Mediterranean. I don't
know if that was important to you all, but just so you know, if you did have your heart set on some of the
graphics that were shown, there is no commitment to that style of architecture within the PUD document.
Finally, I'd just like to add that I've received 15 letters of objection from the community for this
project, and I've also had a few phone calls, people asking me how they could sign up.
So I'll answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. I think we might have a few.
Okay, members of the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, you know the concept of interconnection as the GMP has
and everything, do you think this really meets it? I mean, isn't the intent to be able to link developments
together to essentially create in a Collier method some sort of a grid? Where this is just a bypass from
interconnection, isn't it?
MR. MOSS: Well, the reason an interconnection was discussed in the first place with the Lakeside
community, several years ago there was an accident outside of their project and they weren't able to leave.
And so it would have been great if they had some sort of escape route, some alternate exit route.
And this interconnection, it was discussed at one time as being just something that was used in the
case of emergencies, but they didn't want to do that. And so since they provided this access road as an
alternative to providing that interconnect with Lakeside, it just seems ridiculous that there's no connection
to it from this development so that there could be interconnectivity between Lakeside one day, this project,
Orange Blossom and the project that develops one day in the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD, which as you
know has sunsetted.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So the point is, and you said it, is that this really isn't an
interconnection, this is just providing an additional dedicated access to the project to the north.
MR. MOSS: Well, when the project across the access road comes in on Orange Blossom Gardens,
they would be required to put an access point there as well, probably the principal entrance. Because as I
understand it, they're not going to be given any access by transportation onto Orange Blossom Drive. So
this would be their main entrance. So yes, the two entrances would be across from one another.
And also, if you look at the project the way it's proposed now, they've talked all along about how
this project is going to provide a lot of sidewalks, it's going to be pedestrian friendly.
And I think that that's important in a project like this, because obviously people of that age don't
.f",,1 cnmfortable driving and they're going to walk alot of places. And I knownIle.of.the reasons they chose
this location was because of its proximity to the library.
And if someone were living in one of the independent living units, in order to get to the library, in
order to get to St. Katherine's Church next door, they would have to walk 170, 200 feet in the opposite
direction just to get out of the project in order to walk west to get to the library. So it just doesn't seem to
make sense that they don't provide an interconnection there for both vehicles and pedestrians.
Page 52
16 I 1~ t A 5
August 6, 2009
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the Planning Commission?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, John-David, I'd like to talk a little bit about the floor area ratio.
MR. MOSS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER CARON: They're asking here for 6.0 (sic), but our code still says .45.
MR. MOSS: That's right. And the reason they were asking for the .60 is just because it's been
granted in other areas of the county.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. But let's talk about the intent of that change or that granting in
other cases.
Is it your opinion that it was for adding amenities and making sure that units could be of a size
that's applicable today and not for just getting additional density?
MR. MOSS: Well, I can speak specifically to Napoli Village PUD, because that was one that I'd
worked on. And in that project we did require them to commit to I think 20 percent of amenities, because
that was their justification for reaching this increased FAR, that today's market supposedly requires much
larger units than those that were provided at the time the LDC was written. They felt that it was an outdated
provIsIOn.
So I said fine, if you're going to provide larger units and provide a certain percentage of amenities
in this development, I would recommend approval of the FAR .6.
And they also submitted a formal deviation request as part of that project--
COMMISSIONER CARON: And there's no deviation for this. Why not? That was my next
question.
MR. MOSS: Maybe Ray could speak to that.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows.
The deviation process is intended to look at design standards and development standards to deviate
from, from the code. This is more of an intensity issue, like increasing the number of dwelling units to a
residential PUD. It really looks at the bulk of the structure and the intensity of use, meaning you can have
more number of beds and more people involved.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But as we just discussed, that was not the intent of increasing the
FAR. The intent of increasing the FAR was not to make the projects more intense in terms of units, it was
to allow expansion of unit size and to allow amenities to happen.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct, on the other PUD. There's no regulations in the LDC that says
they can't through a PUD process look at increasing that intensity of use. But what we're looking at is not as
a deviation from a design standard but as an increase in intensity.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So I guess that's up to us to stipulate. Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, floor area ratio does have certain design elements to it, but it's not -- I don't
look at it as a change in design as much as they're proposing to increase the intensity of this project.
And I wanted to look at it like somebody trying to increase the number of residential dwelling
units. There's increased traffic impacts, there's increased services to the building. So I think it's more
serious to increase the floor air ratio. It's not just a design deviation. I didn't want to minimize it by saying
it's a design deviation. _._ - . -
COMMISSIONER CARON: Agreed, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else of staff?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could I follow through?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
Page 53
161 ~~ A5r1
AuguJ 6, 2009
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the FAR is really just controlling the mass of the project,
correct?
MR. BELLOWS: WeU, as you know, it can mass -- in this case it allows for more intense use. But
it is also the mass of the building.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And that's normally what F ARs are for--
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- is to control the mass of a project, compared to the site it's on.
Does the exterior balconies, will they count in the FAR?
MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe so.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't either.
The parking garage?
MR. BELLOWS: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., couple things. In your PUD in the writing on the very last page, you
have an item called a PUD close-out determination. It really doesn't apply to this PUD. Wasn't that intended
for one of the others?
MR. MOSS: It was. And I spoke with John Podczerwinsky and it was inadvertently included as a
transportation commitment in this PUD. So that is something else that we can delete. I'm sorry, I forgot to
mention that when I was going through the changes to the PUD document.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we understand the deviations. There are six ofthem on Exhibit
E. I'd like to walk through each one of them with you so there's no mistake as to where the understanding of
these are.
The first one talks about a wall or a height of six feet, maximum eight. Could you explain to us
where that deviation is -- I mean, we can put the site plan back up there on the screen, it might help.
And then -- I'd use that C-I handout you've got, Ray. That's probably the --
MR. MOSS: I'm sorry, Commissioner, which deviation are you referring to? What number?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start with one. If you turn to Exhibit E in the PUD, why don't we just
start from the top and work our way down number one. And then if you could walk us through those
deviations and which ones staff is in disagreement with separately, that would help us to understand this
better.
MR. MOSS: Thanks. All right, the first one that's listed there is from Section 5.03.02(E). In this
one, this is just at the border of the property with Citrus Gardens, which is a Lakeside project. Apparently
there's an existing wall along the northern boundary of the property. And because they're required to also
provide a wall in this section because of commercial uses there, they would be providing a wall that just
immediately abuts an existing wall on Citrus Gardens property. So they asked that that requirement be
waived. However, they would provide it on the remaining 1,000 feet on the property boundary, as required
by the LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number two?
MR..MOSS: The next one isgeviationfrom Section 6.06.02 to require a sidewalk.ononly one side
of the proposed internal access drives. That's throughout the entire project on the internal drives. They're
normally required to provide sidewalks on both sides of these drives, but instead they're requesting to
provide them on just one side.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is staff against or in favor of this deviation?
MR. MOSS: Staff is okay with that deviation, but staffhas asked to compensate for the lack of the
Page 54
16 I ti, A ~
August 6, 2009'
additional sidewalk that they expand the width ofthe one sidewalk they're going to build and that they
expand it to six feet. The developer said they don't have a problem doing that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So on number two we should add that if this project were to go forward,
they would expand the sidewalk to six feet.
MR. MOSS: Yes. And that's been added already as a condition of approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just looking at the PUD language, but I understand.
MR. MOSS: The third one is a deviation from LDC Section 4.06.05(N)(1). And that requires water
management areas to have a curvilinear edge. And they're not necessarily going to be able to provide this,
but staff doesn't have a problem with it, because there is a provision in the LDC that accepts developers
from fulfilling this requirement, as long as the water body is an integral feature of the project.
And in this case, as you can see, this is supposed to be a lakeside enviromnent. And so staff felt
that they had accomplished this.
And also, these bodies of water wouldn't be visible from outside the project anyway, so staff wasn't
really concerned.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number four?
MR. MOSS: The fourth deviation is from LDC Section 6.06.01(0) which requires a width of 60
feet for private roadways to allow 24 feet in width for private roadway. And that refers to the proposed
access from Lakeside to Orange Blossom Drive that's going to be on the western side of the property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And staff's okay with that now?
MR. MOSS: Staffis okay with that now. Transportation has determined that it would provide a
public benefit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, number five?
MR. MOSS: Is a deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02(A)(1)(a) that requires sidewalks on both
sides of a local street that's adjacent to a property.
And they want to allow the 24-foot wide two-lane access drive located on the western edge of the
property to have no sidewalks. That's the one staffhas a problem with. Staff feels there should be sidewalks
provided there so that residents walking to the library or to St. Katherine's Church can actually get there by
wallcing in that direction.
The last one is deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02, which requires a Type D landscape buffer of
20 feet adjacent to a roadway. And this again refers to this private -- or excuse me, this access road. They
would like to reduce the width of that required buffer from 20 feet to 15 feet.
And staff is okay with that, as long as they're going to require the required plant materials for the
Type D buffer in that reduced buffer yard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, we seem to be getting a lot of this, I mean, in an effort to
maximize every square inch of these projects. By allowing them to lessen, yet plant the additional plantings
in a smaller area, what's the life of these things? Is this actually working?
MR. MOSS: That's a good question, and that's one that would be suited for our landscape architect.
Unfortunately I'm not one.
Ray, do you have any experience with this? Do you know?
MR. .BELLOW~LThe county has approved similar deviations in the past, and I have not.heardof
problems arising from providing that same amount of planting in a smaller buffer area. I'm not aware of any
problems.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And again, I just -- I question this because oflooking at older
PUDs that I've seen. And we have certain requirements for not only buffering but other trees and
landscaping that we have to do. And a lot of times when this landscape grows up and out, it can't handle the
Page 55
16 ; "f Pi'
oe't
August 6, 2009
space that it was forced to be put in. And we've required it and then grown trees just can't handle it Jr. you
know, you're trying to squeeze a hardwood tree and eight palms in a space that is meant for two pa,rns and
a hardwood.
MR. MOSS: I can tell you, Commissioner, that this buffer that they're proposing would hav~ to be
reviewed and approved by our county landscape architect. There are no plant materials that have bem
committed to here, just the number of materials. So I'm sure he would only allow them to plant the types of
trees and other shrubbery that's appropriate in a restricted yard like this.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Did I hear that they were also not only going to put the amourt in the
smaller space, but also 20 percent additional?
MR. MOSS: No, I think it would just amount to 20 percent over what's normally required for this
type buffer that they're proposing. So it's basically the same plant material, just in a reduced buffer :;;ucl.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Also, doesn't staff -- if plants die off or are removed, aren't they required
to replace them?
MR. MOSS: Yes.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's not the issue. It's just a matter of--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, I'm just curious,just so in case it does happen that way.
Does anybody else have any other questions?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one quick.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If they put a sidewalk down that roadway, doesn't that put added
pressure on that? They would have to then shift that over --
MR. MOSS: That's why they don't want to do it, because they say there's not sufficient space; to
provide it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And there's a six-foot wall in there, too.
MR. MOSS: There will be. They will be required to provide a wall against the roadway.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., one of the other questions, and I think I asked this of the applieal1t
ahead of time. I told him to make sure they provided it. We don't have the list of officers or stockho [deI'S __
stockholders we do, but not officers of the Old Barn, Inc. and the Eunhee Bates Living Trust and of LCS
Westminster Naples, LLC.
MR. MOSS: Mr. Yovanovich e-mailed that information to Heidi yesterday. I don't know ifshe
reviewed and approved it, but I know he sent something to her.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you hiding out on us, Heidi?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, I did receive an e-mail for both Old Barn and for LCS. And if you'd
like me to read off the officers, it would just take me a moment to pull up the list--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so we know there's no conflicts of anybody on this panel.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the whole purpose of it in the first place.
So when you pull it up, just let me know and we'll listen to it.
Any other questions of J.D. at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, J.D., you're off the hook.
MR. MOSS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Page 56
1""
lkgls~, 200' 5
Ray, how many public speakers do we have?
MR. BELLOWS: Eight.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eight? Let's see, there's only five people here. Oh, six. Maybe we have
eight. Pretty close to it.
Okay, then we'll break when -- in between people we'll catch Heidi's information. So why don't we
call the first public speaker. . I'"
And when you're called -- first of all, everybody that speaks has to have been sworn in already by
the court reporter. So if you haven't, please let us know. Come up to either one of the speakers and we'll be
anxious to hear what you have to say.
MR. BELLOWS: The first speaker is Ellen Milotte.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, while the speaker is coming up to the podium, I'll just quickly
let you know that the Old Barn, Inc., the president and treasurer is Mark Bates. The secretary is Eunhee
Bates. It's owned by the Eunhee Bates Trust, and Eunhee Bates is the sole beneficiary. And you spell
Eunhee E-U-N-H-E-E.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
And what about LC Westminster of Naples, Inc.?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I received about six pages of documentation on that one. IfMr.
Y ovanovich has it, we can put it on the visualizer or I could ask my secretary to print it out and she can
bring it down and we'll distribute it to each of the members.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to know the names that are required by county code, as required by
our documentation. If it's owned by a corporation, I want to know the list of officers and the stockholders
and the percentage of stock owned by each. If it's a trustee, I want a list of the beneficiaries of the trust with
a percentage of interest.
If it's owned in general or limited partnership, I want a list of the names of the general or limited
partners. I want with this application what every other application in the county is supposed to have. So
whatever that takes, whatever Mr. Y ovanovich has to produce, that's what we expect.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'll have my assistant print out the materials and she'll bring it down.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that will work.
Ma'am, sorry to hold you up.
MS. MILOTTE: My name is Ellen Milotte. I live at 3039 Horizon Lane, in Bridgewater Bay.
I did e-mail John-David Moss on the 27th of July with my letter of question. I'm not sure whether
you do have it, but you did refer to a number of the items that I do have some serious questions about.
Number one is the 6.0 ratio versus the LDC of.45 for the county. I consider that very
unreasonable. This request is not compatible at the state density ratio. It does not fit this land surrounded by
the residential neighborhood with a much lower ratio. The density ratio should be no more than the .45.
The request by the petitioner to .60 is too high.
Point number two: The height does not conform to any buildings in the area. The government
buildings across Airport Pulling Road in the Carlisle residence do fall within the residential background of
the community. The Greek church, which should not have been used as a comparable.
From what my understanding is, my husband being a retired appraiser, it is only using -- you use
such buildings only when you.haye nothing else to go b,\'. . _ _.__ ..
The Baptist school height is actually a three-story building and a decorative parapet with a
mounted cross. It is a half mile away. It's been measured in both directions twice, from where the property
starts closer to Airport Pulling Road. And this was a curb measurement, this was not including the setback.
So actually the Baptist school church height is not a good comparable either, because this is too far away to
be used.
Page 57
1611 A5
August 6, 2009
The plan -- also the height, it's now setting a different standard for the future building of property
along Airport Pulling Road. We have pretty much a consistency there. And now from Immokalee down to
Pine Ridge you do not have anything over three stories at this time.
The plan for a delivery road, which I'm hearing flip-flopping now, but at the point oflistening to
this report, when done at the Italian American Club, said that the access road -- delivery road would be on
the east end of the project.
Well, in my opinion this is a situation where two deliveries a day are totally unreasonable for the
number of people it will be serving both as residential, those who need care, because you're going to be
having more delivery trucks than what they're saying.
I'm concerned about any hazardous medical situations, I'm concerned about any hazardous waste
medical situations, pickup or delivery. Also, I'm considering now the -- in consideration of the height of the
building. When I'm reading this report that was presented, I'm seeing that the buildings are now not one
building at four living units and a garage underneath, but another fourth story building with no parking.
But still, even if it is flip-flopped, it's interfering -- it would be interfering with the height of the
building on -- at Bridgewater Bay.
It would not be -- even with the -- our height with the -- I'm trying to think of the word; I do know
it. The very top of the building where they have put the decorative --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The roof? The peak of the roof?
MS. MILOTTE: The peak of the roof. Beyond the peak of the roof. It would still be unreasonable
height to look out and have to view this. Because no tree is going to grow that high to make an appearance
that's going to be satisfactory, because the back of the building will be facing us.
So I would please ask you your consideration, especially to the density of the .45, if that's the route
you go. Because I think the project is too large for the site and this is a way for them -- this project to go
through if they get the .60. And the 4.5 (sic) would be reasonable. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker, please.
MR. BELLOWS: Linda Sullivan.
(Speaker was duly sworn).
MS. SULLIVAN: Hi, I'm Linda Sullivan and I live in Lakeside Villas. And I have been sitting here
today listening to a lot of concerns about the Siena Lake projects. And as somebody who lives in the
neighborhood, I just want to say that I think it's a fantastic project for a lot of reasons. One being that it will
provide construction jobs for this economy. It will also provide employment for future economies in
Collier.
I think the landscaping and design of it, being an upscale living facility, will be a positive effect on
the area. I love having another access road, based on stories I've heard about how people couldn't get out of
Lakeside in a hurricane that was down here before I moved here. It was more than five years ago.
So Ijust want to tell you that as president of the Lakeside Villas, I think it's fantastic, and I can tell
you from talking to other people in our neighborhood that there are a lot of people who think it's a good
thing, even though they're not here today to tell you for themselves. So thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Mary Ann Costello.
MS. COSTELLO: I'm Mary Ann Costello and I live at 3244 Sundance Circle in Bridgewater Bay.
My property is not affected by any views to the upcoming project, so that's not why I'm here. I'm
here about an overall concern for the community that I live in.
I will say and agree with the lady that just spoke that the project looks beautiful. It seems to be well
Page 58
161 .~ A5
AugusT 6, 20'<J9
appointed, so I'm not dealing with the quality of the people that are involved or the quality of the project.
I've done a little research on the company and I'm comfortable with that.
However, as I look at the project, and I think Brad, you're the one that brought this up, 1,200 feet of
linear feet of a five-story building, the only thing I can think of is the Sync1atron (sic) in Palo Alto,
California.
And for those of you who have been there and seen that, it is not a pretty site. It's just massive. It's
massive.
The height structure. I went out this morning really early, about 6:00 a.m. And I kept riding all
around the part of northern Collier County trying to find another building that was five stories high that I
could see. Down Airport Pulling I saw a four-story building behind the community school, and then the
next large building I saw I'm standing in right now.
So it's just not in keeping with the surrounding area. We are a residential community all around
there, and now we're putting in a semi-commercial establishment that is going to be in my opinion an
eyesore. An eyesore.
If perhaps we can get to the density of.45 that could bring that down, maybe there's some ways of
blocking it, meaning a building and then maybe some air space and a building and some air space and a
building and some air space so it doesn't look like the Synclatron of Naples.
The maintenance facility to me is a problem up in that corner, because that in fact abuts next to
people's properties in Bridgewater Bay.
And then I have a question. It was said that the 140 employees would use the main gate to come
into work. I don't believe so. They're going to use the service entrance, because that's where their parking
facilities are. So that's going to be a little traffic noise, along with the garbage trucks and everybody else
that goes in there.
Also, it was stated that there is a guard gate but no gate at the main entrance to Siena Lakes, so that
it is not a gated community. So that says this retail space perhaps will be used by other people and the
traffic will get maybe even greater.
So I don't know what there is in the provisions with the developer to prevent that sort of thing and
to contain it for what it's supposed to be.
But as a member of Bridgewater Bay, I would strongly recommend that you test hard the .45 versus
.6 and the height ofthose buildings, and maybe breaking them up. Because I really don't want to live next
to a Synclatron.
And last but not least, there was a statement in the document about will it devalue the property
value of the people surrounding. And the answer was at best weak, in fact sad, because there was no
answer. It seems to me that a professional real estate appraiser, a professional bank appraiser could give
you some feeling as to what effect placing a semi-commercial property in the midst of total residential area
would be to the community.
I thank you for being members of this county planning board. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss, before you leave, I've just got a quick question. Can you spell that
thing in California you're talking about? I want to look that up.
MS. COSTELLO: I think it's C-Y-C-L-O-T-R-O-N. The Cynclatron (sic). There's one larger one
up in Canada. ._.__.~__ .
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it like a commercial thing, or--
MS. COSTELLO: It's an atom-splitting thing for Stanford University.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark, I think it's called a Cyclotron.
MS. COSTELLO: Cyclotron, whatever. But it goes for like -- it looks like it's going for miles. It's
huge.
Page 59
16 I 1 A 5
:AugusMs, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just curious. I never heard about it before, so I'd have to check it out. I
wonder what kind of zoning laws they have.
Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: I'm just thinking about the zoning for that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, what would it be? Essential service in Collier County, of course.
MR. BELLOWS: Ron Hinding?
Not here.
Gary Rossio.
MR. ROSSIO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name's Gary Rossio, I live at Lakeside
Development. 2671 Citrus Lake Drive, building E.
I have a -- I do not agree with building -- I think the buildings here are too tall for this
development. I like the project and I don't mind it being three stories. However, being four stories or five,
whatever they want to call it, a garage plus four, but four and one is five to me.
Now, if you want to set a precedent, that's fine. But I'm in disagreement of the buildings. The
height of it, also with the density. I think it's way too many people in that particular area.
Your studies indicate you want to change the roadway from the present two-lane highway that's
between Airport and Livingston Road to a four-lane highway. Now, you're going to also want to have a
left -hand turn lane or both lanes, which would make it that much less for the developer. Because on that
roadway you can't go -- on the south side you'll have to build that extra two lanes on the north side of the
road, which is going to be where this Siena Lakes is going to be. And that's going to be much less room,
plus the turning lanes and such.
There was also talk about access to Lakeside. My colleague over here, she's on the north side of
Lakeside, it doesn't affect her at all but it affects us because I'm on the south side and that's what affects us
right there.
And she says yes, she'd like to have the access. Well, the manager that lives on the property, he
lives on the north side too, so he's dealing with them. But by the same token, there was also, your staff
mentioned, a fatality on Airport where we couldn't get out. Well, that was years ago when Lakeside -- or
when Airport Road you could make a left-hand turn and go south by going directly out of Airport--
Lakeside you could make a left or right, no matter what.
But the lady made a left-hand turn and a motorcycle was going north on Airport Road and hit her,
turned her Buick Skylark over and he was in three pieces on the highway. But that was the only fatality
we've had at the Lakeside.
I like the development there, I've been there for 20 years, and I like the quietness of it. And that's
really -- I just don't want to have a precedent setting for future development in our area to be going
rampant.
So I just appreciate your concern. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question for Gary.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Gary, just a quick question.
. Is Lakeside a controlled access development? Do you hav~ a guardhouse, a gate? ,~.
MR. ROSSIO: We have a gate that works less the time, but n
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the second gate might not --
MR. ROSSIO: What happens is the gate is open a lot and then even in the mornings -- and the
evening when they have the -- because of the traffic. We have 396 units or doors in our development. And
what they do in the morning when people go to work, they open the gate coming in and going out. So until
Page 60
16 I ~f,' A 5
August 6, 2009
9:00 in the morning when everything is -- most of the people that are going to work, they've already gone,
then they close it up. Because they don't want -- the gate seems to break down on a regular basis.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the answer is there is a semi-controlled access.
MR. ROSSIO: Yes, there is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: Diane Hatzis?
(No response.)
MR. BELLOWS: Helen Athan?
(No response.)
MR. BELLOWS: Peter --
MR. SCHMITT: Kalamaras.
(No response.)
MR. SCHMITT: They were with the church, yes. Helen was with the church.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so that's the -- all the speakers have been called, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I know you probably want to have time for rebuttal.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Before we get to that, can I have transportation staffup again.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'd like to also address the TCMA thing.
COMMISSIONER CARON: We already figured out that's not an issue.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, you--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just wait till you're on record, please.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER CARON: When this section of Orange Blossom is four-laned, do you already
have all the right-of-way you need?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At this point, no, we do not. One of the acquisitions that will be
coming out of this zoning, if the zoning is approved, is an additional 40 feet along the frontage of the
property for a negotiated price that's listed in the -- not to exceed price that's listed in the PUD.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Is that the only piece of the puzzle you're missing?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, I believe there is another portion of it further to the east. I'm not
positive, I'd have to look at the parcel map to find out.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: West.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The west?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: On the corner of Pulling.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: In any case, it's all on the north side.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're okay, trust me.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So when we're looking at setbacks on this master plan, are they (sic)
set back taken into account the right-of-way?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just to make sure that the discussion of what can be built on the property
today under the compo plan is clear, the language that John read to you said that you don't remove density in
the TCMA if you have affordable housing and the other policies as related to the fact that you're in the
Page 61
1611.A5
August 6, 2009
traffic congestion area in the first place and would lose the density. We're not in a traffic congestion area
that would lose the density because we have access to Livingston Road. So the TCMA or EEA provision
that says you lose density is not applicable because you have to lose density based on the traffic congestion
zone provision that would take density away in the fust place. So we would have a base density of four
units per acre under the comprehensive plan.
I just want that out there so nobody says, weU, you can only have three. I just want to make sure
that we're all clear that we can have a base density of four under the comprehensive plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your discussion, Richard, would you focus on your -- where you guys
will be coming from in regards to the response to the concerns expressed by the members of the public and
by the 15 letter holders who are --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we tried to focus our presentation on all of those concerns that were
raised regarding height and intensity in our initial presentation.
The discussion about floor area ratio is a discussion about appropriate unit sizes and appropriate
amenities in today's marketplace. You need to have a .6 to make it work. .45 will not work with the
appropriate unit sizes and needed amenities.
Then the question becomes is this site an appropriate site to put a CCRC at a .6 FAR. That's the
discussion that we believe needs to be had.
Now, we have spent a lot of time and a lot of effort putting together a site plan and a master plan in
the PUD that we think addresses the compatibility concerns raised in the various letters, and the
transportation concerns raised in the various letters.
I think, you know, Mr. Treesh stated on the record and through an analysis of an existing CCRC in
Collier County that our transportation impacts on Orange Blossom Road are not going to be a problem. The
road can handle it. So from a transportation standpoint, we don't believe we're incompatible with any of our
neighbors, especially since Lakeside doesn't even come under Orange Blossom.
So concerns from Lakeside about traffic, I don't understand, but we have in our opinion made a
very legitimate offer to the residents of Lakeside to address the concern that they did have many years ago,
and I remember when that accident happened. You know, I remember that. And I remember them, you
know, clamoring for a second means of getting in and out of their project. And we've provided that in our
site plan, and we provided that on our land at our cost for the construction. 100 percent of the burden.
I don't believe the comprehensive plan in any way indicates that they're supposed to come through
our project, any more than I think you would want to read that comprehensive plan to say that they need to
open up their project to us. Because if you want to have true interconnection, it means they come through
us and we go through them.
And I don't -- I didn't ask them the question, but I don't think that, you know, gated communities
really want to establish that relationship where people are going back and forth through their communities.
So we proposed what we believe to be a reasonable alternative and addresses the concerns of our neighbors
regarding Lakeside regarding their means of coming in and out.
Regarding the height issue, I think we've shown you through our increased landscaping and where
we have located our product types that we're not affecting the view of the people who live in the southern
portion of Lakeside. Their front door faces our development. Their back end of their units face the lake.
It's a very nice lar.e.J looked at -- when I first moved to town in 1990 I looked at Lakeside. I . _ ..
wanted to live on the lake, I couldn't afford those units, I might have been able to afford the other ones that
didn't face the lake. But those people who are on there are facing the lake. Their view is oriented towards
that lake. They're not looking at our project.
But our landscaping plan and the fact that we put three-story product next to their three-story
product we believe addresses the compatibility issue with Lakeside. We believe we have addressed that as
Page 62
16 11 A 5
August 6, 2009
1
well with Bridgewater Bay.
There's been discussion about flipping the property because there were some concerns about the
service entrance traffic. We're amenable to doing that, to address -- if that's a concern of Bridgewater Bay.
I think we've done a very good job in our plan. I didn't hear anybody from Walden Oaks here. Did I
miss somebody who said they reside in Walden Oaks? They're the closest to the five-story buildings.
Now, we're well -- I think the five-story portions ofthis building are at least a football field away
from the southern residents of Lakeside. So I think we've taken that into consideration.
Our traffic impacts are no worse than the single-family project we can do right now. So from a--
that intensity issue is I believe proven to be a non-issue.
We have shown that what we've requested as far as intensity for other similar projects, and they
don't go the full gambit, our density is lower than anybody else. So I don't think we've been pigs, if you
will, about unit types. We're going to do a high quality project.
We've increased the open space. Minimum open space requirement would be 30 people. We're at
51 percent. That's the trade-off. Because we knew we could do -- we could do a three-story -- we said this
early on, we can do a three-story project. It will look terrible and we won't build it and people won't want to
live there. And it will take up more open space.
So the trade-off was to stair-step back, have three-story next to three-story. Where we needed a
little additional height we moved it closer to Orange Blossom and we provided what we believed to be
appropriate buffers and setbacks to address the community's concerns.
Weare -- we think we've done a good job addressing the concerns. There are some people who still
don't like the project, you know. It's going to happen. But there's -- considering the sheer number of
residents around us and how easy it is to send an e-mail or do whatever it is to register a complaint, we
haven't received a whole lot. We received 15 letters. And we think we've addressed those concerns.
And we're requesting that the Planning Commission follow staff's recommendation of approval
and transmit this to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
And again, like I said, if flip-flopping will address the concerns, we're prepared to do that. And
then the benefit to Lakeside if we do that is now we will be using that road, and we may as well eat the cost
of maintenance as well. So we'll build it and maintain it if we flip-flop the road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions of the applicant from the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, and it's on the FAR. What I did is I took the independent
living, put two people in that, the rest of them are one person per unit. And it's coming out where you're
claiming you need like 1,072 square feet per person. Isn't that a lot? I mean, you talk about getting a higher
FAR to, you know, make a bigger unit. But I mean, that's -- you know, across the board the whole project.
Remember, we're not counting parking, we're not counting the parking garage, we're not counting the
parking buildings that -- you're giving each person 1,000 feet.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Look, the only way I can -- and you know me, I've been doing this long
enough. I said to my clients, you know, can you -- you know, at lunch, can you reduce the floor area ratio.
They said it reduces unit size. We're no longer marketable to the marketplace. That's just not what the
marketplace wants. They do not want -- they want these size units. That's what the m<lfketplace wants,
they've done the focus groups. The marketplace wants this size unit. And that translates into the floor area
ratio we're asking for.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how big are the units?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They range -- the average is 1,200 square feet -- oh, the average is 1,400
square feet.
Page 63
16 i"1 A5
August 6, 2009
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're really big then.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, people want to move -- they want to basically move from
what they're used to to a similar size unit in a CCRC.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: At lunch did you talk to the other concern -- the width of this
thing that's on the visualizer now is 60 feet. You have a graphic scale; somebody could check me to see if
I'm wrong, but that's going to be bigger than that. So in other words, the concern I had in the beginning is
that you're not representing again a very long building at the fat size it is. I mean --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, but the setback is measured from the front of the building. So ifit
gets fatter, it's going to be the back side internal to us.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we have no setbacks set on this plan. You do in your--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's to scale. It's the master plan for the location of the buildings.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me ask Ray. If -- Ray, the question's come up with that
they're not going to be able to exceed these setbacks. Are you going to scale the setbacks off of this plan or
are you going to go by the ones that are in the chart?
MR. MOSS: Yeah, and I've measured all the setbacks on the submitted conceptual plan, the 24 by
36 version of it, and they do meet what's proposed in the Exhibit B to the PUD document.
One thing I wanted to clarifY too for Commissioner Caron. A moment ago you asked if the
setbacks were measured from the existing right-of-way or the proposed right-of-way. They're measured
from -- they will be measured from the existing right-of-way, which they're allowed to do by the LDC. So
not --
COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand.
MR. MOSS: -- the new one.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So that's going to make a difference --
MR. MOSS: So it's going to be reduced even further.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- in this 1,200 feet of building.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And John, let me -- when you said they meet the setbacks, does
that mean that they are less than or equal to the setbacks? Because in other words, what we're showing here,
it would be nice if they were exactly what was shown here.
MR. MOSS: Well, if you look on the plans that are to scale, the setbacks that they're proposing
from Orange Blossom, the point -- there are points on those buildings that abut Orange Blossom, or at least
adjacent to Orange Blossom. They're running parallel to it. There's a point that juts out of each of them.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct.
MR. MOSS: That is the point, the narrowest point which they meet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that point is how far from --
MR. MOSS: If you look at the table in Exhibit B, it will tell you from what the requirement is from
the southern property boundary.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it is 100 feet.
MR. MOSS: If it's 100 feet, that's exactly what it is. I've scaled them all.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But then Donna's point, it's going to be 40 feet less once the
right-of-ways get --
MR. MOSS: That'sright. . ___ __.. .
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But remember, every one of our exhibits that we showed you today and the
master plan shows you where the landscape buffer is. And the landscape buffer is on the north side of the
right-of-way. So all of the exhibits and all the enhanced landscaping is shown to you where it's going to
actually be, not 40 feet south of really where it is. So all those exhibits are based on real world.
So we have given up 40 feet of our project to Collier County for Orange Blossom Drive.
Page 64
16 11' A 5
August 6, 2009
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
Interconnection. The reason I think that's in the code is to interconnect the developments. Whether
it's in this case with gated communities something that's used daily or it's just for emergency, instead of that
road, would you have a problem just putting -- bringing the road down like you have it but just hooking it
into their travel lane and putting emergency access gates? Because the only time it would be necessary is in
emergency. And that can work both ways. They may need to have to get out if their front entrance goes
down.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will tell you that I think -- in my discussions with Nick, he didn't want this
limited to just emergency. He wanted people to have another way out on a permanent basis for Lakeside. It
was not just the intermittent emergency interconnect, he was looking for another -- so not everybody from
Lakeside would have to go onto Airport Road to get out to go to work or wherever they wanted to go.
So this was not -- that's the discussions we've had with Nick and that's why you have this bypass
road.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, could maybe transportation nod?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was a positive nod I saw.
All right, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of anybody at this point before -- Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: If this plan gets flipped around and suddenly this road becomes a lot
more important because you'll be using it as well --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: As the service entrance, yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So is the county going to be fine with the width of this road now
that's been reduced from county standards now that it's a -- I mean --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let's remember, the county width of a right-of-way, they're all 24-foot wide
pavement. It's to include utilities and other things. That's where that 60 feet is coming from. We don't need
utilities in any of that, we just need the pavement.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, he's right about that.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Could you please restate the question? It was about the width of the --
COMMISSIONER CARON: The width of this road. Ifthis plan gets flipped and they begin using
this road and they'll be using it for their service vehicles and everything, are you still happy? 24 feet is all
you need, right?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, it will be satisfactory.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And that will be --
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. That's all I wanted to confirm.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? She's done, do you want to ask a question?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's not a question, it's just a comment on that flipping routine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you've got a question, then we ask it now. Otherwise we're going
to have discussion --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Lguess it would be of Rich.
When I first looked at this, I noticed for one three open accesses to Orange Blossom which looked
too many. And that's why I initially thought flipping it you'd end up with two which would be less, you
know, severe, if you want to put it that way.
Then also if you flipped it, it would take care of some parking issues. You could put more
buffering along the northeast side. And you might even be able to slip a sidewalk in there and ease the --
Page 65
1611;A5
August 6, 2009
allow that, the complaints about no sidewalk.
Seems like flipping it would be just a no-brainer to me.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I will tell you, we've talked about that. We're willing to flip it. And I
think we can get a six-foot sidewalk. But I don't think we could do that and a bike path on that road. I
mean, it's everything that keeps getting added to this deal, you know.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think it could serve as both, but--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. I mean, we would hope that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need a private tram road, too.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A question. If you flip it, Rich, that means that the people from
the north Lakeside will have access to the roadway system of your project, then; is that right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, they'll have -- the road that's there --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you'll isolate that road and just put entrances off of that into
your parking?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. What will happen is, is there'll be this road now, I guess with a
six-foot sidewalk. This flips over. We'll be using it to get in and out of our service area. So I think one of
the concerns from Bridgewater Bay was, you know, you're going to have a lot oftraffic by us on that
service road and employees and all that stuff. I think that issue goes away. The amount of traffic by them is
reduced. There's no longer any employees, no more service deliveries.
So we'll have a connection point on here at some point for, you know, wherever it needs to be
appropriately. That one goes away so you'll have these two. So yes, we'll be connected to it.
And that's why I said, you know, Commissioner Schiffer, since we're actually connecting to it and
using it, you know, we'd accept the maintenance responsibilities as well.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Will the buildings on the shown eastern side now, will -- well,
actually, it would be the buildings on the western side. But will they be closer to the Bridgewater or will
they be the same as shown on this?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it would flip. And I would think you'd have to look at it as a worst
case scenario, because I don't know the answer. But whatever this distance is right now, I am assuming it
would be now on this side. But that's three-story product, and they're 45 feet zoned height in their own
product, so it's certainly consistent with their zoning at that point.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And keep in mind, they don't -- they end approximately here. The rest of it
is associated with the First Baptist Church property. So there's a -- they don't extend -- their project doesn't
extend all the way down to Orange Blossom.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think flipping's good. The only downside is that pool area will
now not have that western exposure, which would make it a nice place to be in the afternoon. But anyway,
small point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other questions of -- Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Y ovanovich, in your discussions over lunch, did you talk at all
about Mr. Schiffer's concern about this great wall of Siena here that you're planning, about breaking it up in
any fashion? And I don't mean by just stepping back a few feet but actually letting light and air through
here by separating buildings.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, what we did -- because remember, it goes down to a portion.
Although they're physically connected, it goes down to a two-story portion called the commons, again.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, but that's also at the furthest setback area.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. But, you know, we attempted to break it down, but there's still got to
be some functional utility of getting people to the commons inside. That's the way -- you know, they want
Page 66
~~gJst 1, A~ ~
to be in a climate controlled enviromnent when they're walking from their unit to the commons area. And
that's something we have to deal with.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. Which happens on the first floor, not on the fifth floor.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, but we bring it down. The commons area comes down to two-story.
So you have four stories and then it steps down to two and it goes back up to four as far as the height
articulation goes. And then there's the in and outs.
And maybe the architect needs to answer that, because sometimes I abuse the architectural
language.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me step in, Donna?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me grab the floor a little bit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He said the architect. So they're referring to you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe so. But the architectural standards are essentially designed
to break up the mass of a building. That's their function. So let's try and see if they do it.
One of the things they can't have is a large wall plane, they do have to break it up. Other things
would be rooflines can't be continuous for certain lengths. So let's give our standards a shot at it. And I
trust them, Donna.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I've had -- I beg to differ. I've seen things very recently where
at the corner of Wiggins Pass Road where suddenly we had two walls where it's not allowed by our code,
but suddenly we made all these exceptions.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I thought you fixed that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And the -- and the code, your architectural standards didn't help.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or compliance was an issue.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, my choice was a trellis, so I think it's a real issue.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think there was some gray areas in interpretation on the corner of
Wiggins Pass. Ray can vouch, whatever you think, Ray.
I mean, I think you jumped in and the feet got a little closer to the fire once you arrived.
COMMISSIONER CARON: We did the best we could. But I'm just saying, leaving it to the
architectural standards isn't necessarily a great idea. Because I can see the number of feet that are going to
be right there. I mean, you can measure them off.
MR. DAVISSON: How about I just use this --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the mic.
MR. DAVISSON: This is Craig Davisson again. I'm just going to use this computer model.
You know, obviously we have the book of architectural standards. And, you know, we'll certainly
comply to it. But I would think that what you're seeing here is above and beyond that with regard to the
architectural and the materials.
What -- and Mr. Schiffer makes a good point. I mean, we are -- you're looking at a building that is
three-story over parking that settles down to two-story and back to four-story over parking. We're going to
be breaking these roofs up. And even if they're not broken up in floors, the roofs are going to be broken up.
And again, it's also going to be broken up on the ground plane that you're seeing this. And I use
that example. This portico, like iLyouwereccc you can actually see through the building that's adjacent to
the garage and the -- you know, so the building's not only going to be broken above, it's going to be broken
below where you can walk through and underneath the building.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Craig, what you're showing here is really a lovely look at the very
center of your building, the furthest away.
If you had taken this and gone further to either the left or the right, you would run into not this
Page 67
16 11 A 5
August 6, 2009
angled area, but this wall, two walls that are going to be on Orange Blossom at 70 feet.
And they're not going to be 100 feet back, because you're going to take 40 of it for road
right-of-way. The landscaping will be back, but I mean, it's just -- it's a whole different look. That's a lovely
little look. I mean, I understand, we deal with this all the time. And you're supposed to put the best face
forward, I understand that.
But in reality what's going to be sitting there are these walls on Orange Blossom at 70 feet in
height, 69 feet in height that is -- nobody else has anything close to that around this area.
MR. DAVISSON: Well, you know, again--
COMMISSIONER CARON: So I'm just trying to--
MR. DAVISSON: Okay, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- get things broken up so that it doesn't look so massive.
MR. DAVISSON: And I'm not saying that our solution is the only solution and that's the way it's
got to be done. I'm just -- the concept was that it was broken up on plane, that when you approach the site
you've got these open arms that engage.
And again, the option is it's when you're putting -- you know, you're putting something on a site, it's
like pushing a balloon. If! put -- you want to go three-story along Orange Blossom Trail, we can do that.
But we're not going to be able to pull the buildings back and create this entry scene. When you pull the
buildings back, they have to get higher. I mean, you're dealing with a balloon.
And yeah, you want three-story, we could take three-story and put them along the entire length
right up to the setbacks, like most communities do in Naples. If that's -- that was not even an alternative to
us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing you're missing in your statement, sir. You want to do anything
on this property, it's going to have to be zoned.
MR. DAVISSON: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you come in for zoning, if you were to show a building like you just
described, you wouldn't get approved. So let's stop the threats, because they aren't going to happen. That
kind of -- that isn't going to work.
MR. DAVISSON: It wasn't a threat, sir. All I was stating is we looked at that when we were
kicking the tires on the site, and that was just something that we didn't want to go down that road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you couldn't.
MR. DAVISSON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Craig, your name is? I'm sorry.
MR. DAVISSON: Davisson.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Could you flip back a couple more? Because you did have
one slide in the beginning that was new information.
MR. DAVISSON: Am I going back?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go back towards the beginning of your -- I think you're going the
wrong way.
MR. DAVISSON: Yeah, I'm going back to the beginning.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, you know, never mind, I misinterpreted._ .__.
See that small brown area?
MR. DAVISSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that representing the lower roof area, or is that --
MR. DAVISSON: Yes, sir, the building steps down. Where it says clubhouse, that's an inaccuracy.
That's actually the clubhouse. The commons area is actually in the lighter shade. What the brown represents
Page 68
16 I ,,' A?
August 6, 2009
is the four-story over parking, stepping down to three-story over parking.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: See where it says independent living, see that brown spot? Is that
a lower roof area there or is that just defining where independent living is?
MR. DAVISSON: It was meant to show that that's where the building steps down.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you put that step-down up on the Orange Blossom side?
Take the same -- do you see what I'm saying? It's a leg of the -- you have like a trapezoid shape there. Just
grab the leg up on Orange Blossom. That would make that corner peak look like a tower, which would look
better. We actually encourage towers in the standards.
But make sure -- that may be just showing the brown where independent living is. But if it is a
lower roof, I think it would help solve our problem if you put it in the southwest corner of the building
instead of above the southwest corner. Just give us that. It's not on our plan here, but --
COMMISSIONER CARON: What it shows on the plan is just that there would be no parking
under that portion of the building. So it would be four stories, not four stories plus parking. That's what the
master plan says.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So it steps down from five to four.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, from five to four.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, my point is that if that step was on the corner, just
rotate it 90 degrees, and then maybe on the other end do something the same, just to break the roof up.
But I do think the standards are going to give the roof a lot of play, so -- anyway.
MR. DAVISSON: Again, like I said, I'm not saying that this is the only way we c,m approach this
at this stage of design. And obviously every step forward we take, it's design development, it's making the
project better.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions? I keep asking that question, but I'11
ask it one more time. Are there any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're finished with the public speakers.
And Richard, you're done with your discussion?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I just wanted to make -- I think what Commissioner Caron was
saying is -- and the concern about how close the five-story portions of the building will actually be to
Orange Blossom, once the 40 feet is provided, I'm hoping that -- you've got to keep in mind that the center
portion of that is actually pushed back another 240 feet.
There are two portions ofthe building that yes, are closer, but the vast majority of it is pushed back
away from Orange Blossom in that design. And of course we're -- I think the architectural standards are
going to make you do some articulation of the buildings anyway for the portions that do front closest to
Orange Blossom.
Again, I hope what we've done with -- I guess if the flip-flopping will work, like I said, with the
sidewalk, we hope that that will address a lot of issues, or address the issues. And we think it's a good
project, or else we wouldn't be here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that we will close the public hearing and we'll have
discussion before a motion.
So with that in mind, does anybody want to lead off on a discussion? We're working towards a
motion of some type here.
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I've listened carefully. I haven't said a lot but I've listened
carefully to what everyone says. And I will be in favor of approval with the exception of deviation five,
Page 69
16111 A5 4,
August 6, 2009
basically following the staff recommendations.
I think that even though there is five stories and there is a density complaint, that it's mitigated by
just the good design of it and the way that it's tapered and the way -- the overall design, so I'11 be in favor of
approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we move forward with approval, there are some conditions which
I think we ought to consider as part of that process.
One is the offer to flip-flop the project is probably a good one, because it takes the health center,
the service area, the maintenance facility and all that and moves it over to the opposite side of the site,
further away from occupied PUDs that exist.
That then allows for a better buffer on the other side. And moving the independent living facilities
over there and up against Bridgewater, they would end up with a three-story instead of a five-story
building, and they would end up with less activity that a service center and a health center currently would
entail.
So I think if there's a motion to approve, that ought to be part of it.
Secondly, that they have agreed to adhere to the common architectural criteria in our LDC for all
elements. I think that's important to be added to any kind of approval.
Third, that they have agreed to be a lead silver level building design, and that ought to be added to
the process.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're pursuing certification oflead.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which -- well, I'm not going to be -- I wouldn't even suggest language like
that then, because it means nothing.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we're doing our best to get it. I mean, it's a goal. I mean, you may not
get there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a question?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, that's a process where you obviously design a building,
you obviously go through the checklist, you obviously think you are, but you don't know it till the building's
built. So as a condition for zoning, that's kind of scary.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, that's fine. They volunteered it. I was only going with their -- I was
making notes after what they said.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They can brag about it once they get it, but as a condition it's not a
good idea.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, once I heard the pursuing language, I already was going to drop it.
Because it doesn't -- you can't put pursuing in it either.
They're going to strike the opening paragraph of the PUD. I know Ms. Caron and I had discussion
about that. And I think staff acknowledged that it probably wasn't needed, so we're going to take that out.
The payment of impact fees have been tied in numerous occasions to the issuance of the final
building -- or the -- how did they word it, to the issuance of a building permit? And the applicant said they
needed to do that because at the stage ofSDP they don't know if they have a viable project but they do
know when they go in for a building permit. So why wouldn't we tie it to the application of a building
permit? In a case of a two-year construction build-out that provides the impact fees much earlier in the
process.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So all those relationships that refer to final building permit be
Page 70
16 11 A 5
August 6, 2009
moved to application of building permit.
The same with the access easement and the road construction shall commence within 30 days of
building permit application, not the issuance of the first building permit.
They will move the PUD close-out language that's in the last part of the PUD out of the PUD
because it didn't belong in this one, it should belong.in one ofthe other ones.
Division number two to expand the -- deviation number two will be accepted -- will be okay, but
the sidewalk will be expanded to six feet. And I heard Mr. Midney's discussion about deviation number
five where he said he'd like to see that stay in. But ifthey flip-flop the project, that will be impractical to
have that --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You wouldn't need it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- stay in for both sides of the road. So I think that deviation ought to stay
in for only one side ofthe road. Meaning they get a deviation from having it on two sides, but they've got to
have the sidewalk on one side that they volunteered to put in, which was a six-foot sidewalk.
Does that seem --
COMMISSIONERMIDNEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to get all the deviations that we talked about -- I mean, all the discussion
that we had.
Does anybody else have any more contributing comments to that discussion?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm not in favor of the project. And not because I don't see a
need for this type of project. However, I think that this one is totally out of scale with the neighborhood and
the surrounding area, and it's out of scale with the road.
I believe that the community and the neighborhood had a valid expectation that this area would
remain residential. The north, south, east are all -- north, south and east are all developed or proposed to be
developed with residential zoning at four units an acre or less.
I will continue to dispute that 340 independent units has the same traffic as 116 units of residential
housing. And now that we're adding in Lakeside, I don't even know -- obviously that wasn't taken into
account in the TIS, so none of that traffic was part of the TIS.
I still have a problem with this great wall. It's -- I've seen too many times the lovely and very
narrowly focused pictures of what's going to happen, and then when it's on the ground it's a totally different
animal.
And I can't support the project. I really wish I could have. I think we need them and I'm just sorry
that this is so out of scale with what should be there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I've got my statement to make.
I did supply the issues for the recommendation, if there's a recommendation to approve. And I did
that because I expect that there probably will be. However, I will be voting no on a recommendation to
approve. Not for the same reasons Ms. Caron is, although I do agree, we badly need such facilities. And I
think the facility that they're recommending is excellent. I don't really have a problem with the facility.
I just think it's in the wrong place based on its massiveness and its height. If those two things were
adhered to, the FAR doesn't bother me as much. But because of that the PUD findings one, four and eight
in my mind are not met, and the LDC Sections 1O.03.05(I)(2), number one, two, 12, 14 and 15 are not met.
So I would be voting no on this project.
And with that, I need to know if there's a motion.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will.
Page 71
16 111 i A 51
August 6, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a motion to approve with the recommendations from
staff and your recommendations in addition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, those are the stipulations that I read previously?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second--
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Midney.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, siguifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
So it looks like it's 6-2. Yeah, there's eight of us. Yeah, 6-2, motion carries.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you for your time and patience.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're not done yet. We have two more to discuss.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you think this one was easy, the other two are going to be real difficult.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hope you're kidding.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're going to try to get through one or two of these before we take
a break. And Cherie', we'll try to take a break in about 10 or 15 minutes.
Item #9C
PETITION: PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, LCS-WESTMINSTER NAPLES, LLC
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next companion petition to this is PUDA-2008-AR-14091, the
Oak Grove Planned Unit Development. This particular petition was one of those that needed five acres
removed from it.
Are there -- I don't think we need a presentation by the applicant or by staff, unless the Planning
Commission has specific questions.
So why don't we go into any questions the Planning Commission may have about the removal of
five acres from that first Oak C'rrove PPD.
Does anybody have any questions?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the question is -- and it's actually to Jeff.
Jeff, how does this affect the existing owners in the PUD? More particularly the unit owners. I
Page 72
~
16 I ~J A 5
August 6, 2009
mean, are they looking forward to these units to help reduce their overhead operation? Or what is their
status in this application?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I guess to be blunt, they don't have a vote. I mean, it's a consideration by the
Planning Commission, but we often will -- I'll go back to Pebblebrook. That was originally supposed to be
a predominantly residential. We took out a lot of the residential and made it commercial. And, you know,
the residents didn't have much of a vote on that.
It's not quite the same thing here, but it's similar in that you had a certain expectation when you
bought in that it was going to be less. The homeowners fees will go up because of this.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. That was my concern. Because the only thing that they
would really wish out of this is helping the fees, I think. But they don't have a legal standing, they don't
have a legal standing.
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of anybody regarding the Oak Grove Planned Unit
Development in the removal of the five acres?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Then with that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a
motion.
Is there a motion?
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I move that we vote in favor of this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Petition PUDA-2008-AR-14090, motion to approve.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Item #9D
PETITION: PUDA-2008-AR-140n, LCS- WESTMINSTER NAPLES, LLC
Page 73
Augu! ~ 2100t A: 5
~.
'j
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's do the same thing with Petition PUDA-2008-AR-14092.
Richard, we don't need a presentation. Staff, we don't need a presentation.
Are there any questions of anybody regarding that petition? And this is the removal of five acres
from the PUD to the west, which is the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just have a quick question. Isn't there a minimum requirement
for 10 acres for a PUD?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think what you have left over is a dead PUD, when you come right down to
it. And I think ultimately when that property owner wants to develop a property, they'll have to come in and
rezone it. But that former ten -- or present tense, it's going to be about to be a former -- that the existing
PUD is dead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With that already and the fact that this is --
MR. KLA TZKOW: Once you bifurcate it like this, it's dead. It's like cutting a frog in half, it's dead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So both halves are noncompliant. One-half ran away with the
other guy.
MR. KLATZKOW: There you go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it depends. Would you cut it longitudinally or horizontally?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think it matters.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: So in that case, what is the zoning now on that piece of property?
Does it revert back to ago or whatever it was?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think they can develop at this point in time. It's almost in limbo.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Limbo, okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It reverts back to half a frog.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, it's a sunsetted PUD and we did put express language in the
ordinance that would require them to come back for a rezone or a PUD, so they really can't do anything.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions?
MR. SCHMITT: Let me have Ray address this, because again, I heard what the legal -- the County
Attorney stated, but the zoning exists. And there are other options.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows.
The PUD is in fact sunsetted. This zoning action doesn't change the sunsetting status of this PUD.
Before they can reactivate the zoning -- it's still in place, but before they can get a development order, they
have to come back in and amend that PUD or rezone it to another zoning district. It could be a standard
zoning district or they could amend the PUD and qualifY for urban infill. That means they'd have to abut
development on at least two sides, which I think they do in this case. So they could come in for a PUD less
than 10 acres and qualifY that way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either way, they've got to come back in before they can do anything.
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the bottom line.
MR. BELLOWS: Bottom line
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's what the County Attorney was trying to say.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of anybody at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the -- are there any public speakers, Ray?
Page 74
1611'-'1 A5
August 6, 2009
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we forward, oh, my God, Petition
PUDA-2008-AR-14092, that's enough, with a recommendation of approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Thank you. We got through those in record time compared to the first one.
We'll take a break for 15 minutes, we'll come back here at 20 minutes still 3:00 and try to wrap up.
(Recess. )
(Mr. Wolfley is now absent.)
Item #9E
PETITION: PUDZ-2008-AR-12773. GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from break.
The next item on the agenda is a review of another PUD. It's PUDZ-2008-AR-12773. It's called the
Good Turn Center MPUD.
All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of Planning Commission?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I also spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich, and I received e-mail from Ted
Beisler, the Naples Lakes manager, in approval of this. They claim in -- they said it was compatible with
residential neighborhood and they're in agreement with it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I spoke to Richard Yovanovich and Wayne Arnold as well. And
whatever we talked about will be talked about here today.
Page 75
l~ 0 I"
.. . J.
.
PI5
August 6,2009
Okay, Wayne, it's all yours.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. I'm Wayne Arnold and I'm with Grady Minor. iVld with me today is
Ken O'Leary, who represents the property owner; Rich Y ovanovich is the land use la wyer on 'he proje'ct;
and Ted Treesh is here to -- has prepared the Traffic Impact Statement for the proj'~Cl.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're giving Rich a break. He's up all morning ane all aftemoon, and so
you --
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. He has about a two-hour presentation, and I persuaded him to let
me speak instead.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You should have persuaded him the fust one.
MR. ARNOLD: I asked to go first, trust me.
Ray has up on the visualizer the location exhibit. This of course is the Goc,d rum mixed use
planned development. It's about a nine-and-a-half acre project. It is located in activ it) number seven. You
have commercial zoning to the north. You also have Sembler's commercial PUD to be south.
One of the things you'll note from our master plan --let me put it up on the visualizer. Maybe we
can pull that down just a little, Ray.
One of the things that was one of the discussion points throughout this project is the access to the
site. And we have agreed and we'll be sharing access with the Sembler property to rhe south. We'll be
sharing the bridge structure there and interconnecting with them. And you'll note, we're also proposing an
interconnect to the north. But we have a bridge access agreement in place.
We forwarded the actual recorded agreement to Heidi in the attorney's office I'm not ,ure ifit was
yesterday or the day before, Mr. Strain, and I think you were provided a copy of that as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had asked for a copy when we met, yes.
MR. ARNOLD: Transportation staff has seen that, and I guess we can proviee a copy for the
record, if necessary. But otherwise we have the recorded access easement with Sell1bler Companies.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a recorded document, so --
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
One of the things that I wanted to point out, we are in the activity center. AnG this project is about
nine-and-a-half acres. We've asked for a mix of uses, and this became a mixed use pl:m development when
we asked for the independent and assisted living components of this.
And you'll notice that on the master plan we still have an area that's C or CF. And that's set up
essentially so that we can have two different districts, but we'll have the OppOrtuni~1 t,) make this a
commercial project or potentially to have this more of an assisted living project.
Keep in mind, it is in close proximity to the new hospital. And we think thltchere's a certain
synergy here related to the Edison College and some of the other things that are happening along this
corridor that make it desirable to have the flexibility for those uses.
We were originally a -- I think a commercial PUD, and staffand County Attorney's Ojfice felt
more appropriate that we were a mixed use project. And I know that Mr. Yovanovich had som~ of that
discussion with you earlier about why we have those designations. But we're fine, we're covered under the
mixed use with both commercial and the quasi residential uses of the assisted living.
As was mentioned by Ms. Homiak, we had a neighborhood informational meeting a couple of
month, ago :md we sat down with3hollt 3 h~.lf' 1 dozen people that attended th3t mc"jing, Ae.d most were
residents of the Naples Lakes Countryclub. We started dialogue with them and we 0x.;hanged our PUD
document with them.
And they requested that certain uses would be eliminated from that, becaw,e they felt that they
were potentially incompatible with their community and the direction it was headed. And we ultimately
agreed with them.
Page 76
---
16 \ 1
A5
August 6, 2009
And the list that's in your PUD document and the materials before you reflects the agreed upon list.
I know that Mr. Strain, we had a brief discussion and you questioned a couple of those uses, so
whenever you want to get to that, I'd be happy to deal with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, last night though I found reason t'b ~estlon. whole bunch more.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay, fine. But in this particular instance, I think we have a proposal that makes
sense.
I'm not going to belabor this with a long presentation. I'11 be happy to respond to questions.
Staff has made a recommendation of approval. Again, we believe we've satisfied our most
immediate neighbors and I open it up for questions, if you have any.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, questions from the Planning Commission.
Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: In your -- in Exhibit A, in the SIC group, it's under No. 22 and it's
5735, where it says recorded and prerecorded tape stores. Could you add in that, excluding adult oriented?
Because it's retail sales of recorded video tapes and discs.
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, we have no problem adding that language. We've used similar language on
-- I think at King's Lake we also inserted similar language --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, and it's the same one--
MR. SCHMITT: It is redundant. If! could add, though, it is redundant. It's already expressly
prohibited.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Expressly prohibited where?
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, frankly sexually oriented businesses are prohibited, unless -- I'm going to
ask Ray to --
MR. ARNOLD: I can elaborate on that, if you'd like, Joe.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
The number 37 ofthe PUD document under permitted uses already specifically excludes adult
oriented sales, but it is also prohibited through the Land Development Code.
MR. SCHMITT: I mean, we could put it in there, just to make sure it's clarified.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, there's a number of others here --
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, and I would be happy with that. I think that's consistent with how we've
treated the list of uses to put that exclusion, so I think that's an easy add and something that we would do.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And under the community facility track where you have health
services in the 8051, it's in parenthesis. Does that mean that's the only uses that you're going to have --
MR. ARNOLD: Can I get my SIC Code --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- in that number?
MR. ARNOLD: -- just to look at that number and just to make sure -- see all the uses?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes.
MR. ARNOLD: 8051 are skilled nursing facilities and it allows extended care. It also has nursing
homes, skilled. It has convalescent homes with continuous nursing care. And it also says mental retardation
hospitals in the category. There are those four -- yeah, four listed uses under 8051.
That's a little bit.different in the format that -- in the Dast we've kind of formatted these
alphabetically. And we culled out assisted living, et cetera, et cetera. And then we had a whole host of
medical related offices that are also permitted.
But when we created this longer list of uses out of going to the four-digit code, that was the one
that fit and it's culled out of skilled nursing.
And I think it was our intent that under skilled nursing we're offering only those that we've
Page 77
16 I 1 A 5
August 6, 2009
specifically mentioned. But it includes assisted living, independent and --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. But could you put including only before assisted, or--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Maybe if we would delete the reference to groups 8051 and just say under
health services we would have those skilled nursing facilities in the parenthetical stuff, and then you'd be
limited to those uses? Which would be assisted, continuing care and nursing homes. So there wouldn't be
any confusion with the reference to that SIC code. Does that --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That sounds better.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- address your concern?
MR. ARNOLD: So you would strike groups. If the County Attorney's okay with that, we'd be
happy to do that.
Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The resolution was you're going to strike the word -- the reference to
groups?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And just list those specific uses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And then on II where it says it's religious organizations, 8661,
that's all churches. Does that mean you could have a church there or is it just going to be store front
churches?
MR. ARNOLD: That could be --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Because it says you're asking for commercial and/or skilled --
MR. ARNOLD: It's listed in our grouping of the commercial uses. And religious organizations or
churches and religious organizations. It also lists shrines, temples, convents and monasteries. But the intent
there was to allow --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So you can have a church or you're just having store front
churches?
MR. ARNOLD: We could have a church. I mean, you're saying store front. You mean as an in-line
tenant --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah.
MR. ARNOLD: -- is that what you mean?
I guess it could be either/or in that context.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions, Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No, I'm done. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: In the neighborhood information meeting you said there'd be no
outdoor activities. Yet under eating and drinking places it says outdoor entertainment on your list here.
MR. ARNOLD: I think that -- yeah, I think that my recollection was -- Rich just reminded me, I
think .it\in the context of outdoor merchandise.. somejhings of that nature. ReC2l1S1'.UUD\N we've had that
discussion about outdoor dining and outdoor entertainment in conjunction with the restaurant use, which is
why the reference to the noise ordinance was also there.
I don't think we -- I mean, this list has been presented to the most immediate neighbors that had
that, so I don't think we -- I don't think it could be implied that we told them at the NIM that we weren't
going to have that, I think it was in the context of outdoor sales.
Page 78
16 \ 1 A 5
August 6, 2009
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. As long as that's their understanding.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you ought to correct that. Because you presented it to the most
immediate neighbors who are living there right now. There's a large project going to the east of this in
which would be possibly residential, won't it? I mean, Richard was working on it before the economy went
down the tubes.
And if they go in there as residential and we have another outdoor entertaimnent band going on or
something like Pebblebrook, how is that going to help us resolve issues at that late date with -- the noise
ordinance is virtually useless, so --
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think that was the -- when we started this I think we were under the
impression that that was going to be the language that would give us the protection. Ifthere's some other
mechanism -- we've done others where we've excluded -- or placed hours of restriction or things like that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a better way to word it. There's a better way to word it,just
drop the word outdoor.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have in the past eliminated amplified or any music at all. No TVs, no
music, blah, blah, blah. But if you want to have some tables outside and it's a nice evening, why would you
not want to allow people to have an opportunity to have dinner in Florida in the winter outside?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just worried about Bruce Springsteen or somebody showing up with a
guitar and waking up the neighborhood, so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what I'm saying, if you want to eliminate -- the way we've dealt with
that on other occasions --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what's your suggestion?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How about you pull out entertaimnent and just put dining?
Outdoor dining is allowed but not outdoor entertaimnent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he's saying he'd like to have piped in music or something like that; is
that right? Just not amplified music.
MR. ARNOLD: Right. I think amplified is how we've dealt with that in the past. And if we could
exclude amplified music -- I mean, there was some other language we've used and I think it would work in
this context too. And I assume we're coming back for your consent.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we've used in the past no amplified music and no TV s, televisions,
were the two things that took care of it in the past.
Does that work, Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It works for me.
Does it work for you, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You were heading somewhere.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all right, I'll wait for my next. You have --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a lot.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- tons of questions on the uses, so go for it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, did you read the easement that Richard sent me?
Or Richard, did you read the easement that you sent me?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you don't know anything about obnoxious uses, do you?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But I'm always willing to learn.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Especially if you wrote it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't write this.
Page 79
1611 tl5
August 6, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The easement is also an agreement. The agreement's between Collier
Rattlesnake and Sembler.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The agreement not to object to proposed uses.
Sembler hereby agrees that Sembler shall not make any public objection to any proposed legal use
of the Collier Rattlesnake property provided, however, that Sembler may object to the proposed use of the
Collier Rattlesnake property for any of the obnoxious uses set forth in Exhibit E.
And Collier Rattlesnake can object to Sembler's use of any of the obnoxious uses set in Item E.
Well, Item E is two pages of obnoxious uses, many of which you have asked for.
Now, I'm just wondering why you would sign an agreement with your neighbor agreeing these are
obnoxious uses mutually between the both of you and you put them in as uses in your agreement in your
PUD.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: These are -- well, it looks to me that these are issues that they can object to.
They don't have to object to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. But why did you -- why was this even created in the first place?
What is the point of an obnoxious -- what is the point of creating an agreement listing very specifically
language and paying some attorney good money to do it for a bunch of things called obnoxious uses and
then include neither party adhere to them and include them in their document? And what I'm concerned
about is trying to avoid any trouble downstream, because you may need Sembler further down -- at another
time and another date. And if you upset them at this stage, I'm wondering how you might get their
cooperation.
MR. O'LEARY: Hi. Ken O'Leary.
That agreement was the result of a long and arduous negotiation. And this was a requirement that
Sembler wanted to have in it. And we felt that, you know, it was just -- as we all know, with all
negotiations you give and you don't give in certain areas. And this was the result of that. And we allowed
that to stay in. Because it doesn't allow them, it just says that they could if they wanted to. And that's th"
reason why it's in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know why you all came up with those -- or why they did or you
agreed to it? I mean, I'm just curious as to what's so obnoxious about some of the issues?
MR. O'LEARY: It was not in the -- when our attorney, which was not Rich, it was Patrick, another
attorney drew it up. And it came back from them. And we tried to get rid of it. But like I say, you know, in
negotiations you win some and you lose some, and those were the ones that just stayed in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because some of their obnoxious were my obnoxious as well.
So Richard, I had brought it up to you guys before when we met. I'm not going to go through the
objections that they have in their obnoxious uses, because some of those aren't as obnoxious to me as they
may have been to them. And I don't know what reason they put those in there. So I'll bypass those.
I certainly agree with the outdoor entertainment clause, as you know.
Under Section 28 you have three uses: 5983, 5984 and 5989 that not only are uses I can't see fitting
into that area, especially with a hospital not too far away. But they're also parts of the list on listed
obnoxious uses anyway.
Do vOtLneed those three?___.__ _ . _ . .._ _
MR. ARNOLD: After we spoke, I looked at those and I spoke with our client, and he agrees that
we can delete those three, which are -- just for the record, I'll read them: Fume oil dealers, liquified
petroleum gas, bottle gas dealers and fuel dealers not elsewhere classified. And I think that that again falls
under those miscellaneous groupings, and we have no objection to specifically excluding those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
Page 80
16 'T A 5
August 6, 2009
COMMISSIONER CARON: What about continuing down on the list to tobacco stores and stands?
If we're trying for an association with a hospital, I'm not sure that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just didn't want the hospital blowing up, that's all.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I understand.
MR. ARNOLD: If! might, Mr. Strain, one of the things that I had mentioned when you had
requested for us to look more closely at those three that were related to fuel sales, and I thought maybe it's
necessary, maybe it's not. But in some event certain stores, whether you end up with a hardware store or
potentially gas station, they have the bottle exchanges for --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is dealers, though. And I under -- remember we talked about that.
And with the word dealers, I can't see -- you'd have to be selling just that, like Grille and Fill down on the
East Trail, I would assume. That's --
MR. ARNOLD: Because I was going to offer the--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And staffs agreeing as well, so --
MR. ARNOLD: Okay, fine. I just wanted to make sure we address that on the record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your Exhibit B, the development standards table, you have separate
listings for Tract C and then Tract CF. Yet your master plan is all CICF.
So what you're saying is, if you -- for that part of the plan you use the C application, these are what
you adhere to. For that part ofthe plan you used the CF, the other is what you adhere to.
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, this one we had covered it originally by having only one development tract
with standards. And I think probably it started with the County Attorney's Office questioning that if we're
going to have a mixed use project, we really needed probably at least two land use designations specified
on our table. So we broke out the CF, because we thought the assisted living type uses would probably, if
that developed, would occupy most of the site in that development scenario. So we established different
standards.
You're probably going to question if they're blended uses. And I'm assuming that if I ended up with
some medical office out front, I'm developing under the C tract standards, and then what gets developed as
an assisted living or skilled nursing would get developed under the CF standards.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what counts towards the FAR of.6 that you're asking for here goes
towards the standards of the ACLF or CCR.
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if it's not under the CF designation, it wouldn't be applicable to the
FAR, it would be applicable to the leasable 100,000 square feet.
MR. ARNOLD: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are you -- you apparently are leasing out the FAR square footage?
MR. ARNOLD: I'm not sure --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, CCRC's, they don't lease, I don't believe, do they? Well, look at your
table. You have maximum gross leasable area. Then you have 100,000 square feet, and then you have FAR
of.06.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think the answer -- if you're asking the question of whatever square
footage we build in the CCRC, is that being removed from the calculation of the 100,000 square feet?
CHAIRMAN5,TRAIN: Right. _____ _ . _.-
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. That was not the intent that that was in addition to. And as we talked
about that from a traffic standpoint, if you're going to go down there -- get to that at some point, I'm
assuming, Mr. Strain, is that we would agree to a cap --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'm going to get there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: n of trips based on our traffic study. So when we do the analysis, the traffic
Page 81
"6'
~ I
, .
.. '
'"
..
AS
August 6, 2009
analysis will govern the development on the site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So no matter what happens, you're not going t,) exceed th~ traffic
study that was provided, which I believe is a peak p.m. of 626. And before the meeting's over, Joi ill will be
asked to verifY that for us.
Wayne, where's your utilities on this site? Where's the utility dep -- where's the water anc sewer?
Are you going to do septic?
MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. We're in the Collier County Water and Sewer Service district. Vre have a
water main that's in the Collier Boulevard right-of-way and I believe the force main is at the inter;ection of
Rattlesnake and Collier.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how are you going to get them to your site?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think water's there. And the sewer connection is probably -- [believe it's
on the other side -- Ken, you may know -- but I believe the sewer connection's on the other side o!'Collier
Boulevard at the shopping center.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So water is already to your site?
MR. ARNOLD: It's adjacent to it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me on the site plan what adjacent means? Can you point to
the adjacency.
It's in the canal?
MR. ARNOLD: There's a canal, but if you've driven that stretch of highway, you'd see that there
are a whole bunch of Collier County public wells that have been constructed. We haY(" water adjacent to
our site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the water that you can tap into where your mains are for irrigation or
freshwater, whatever is available, is on your side of the canal. And they're right alongside your pn'perty line
in that regard.
MR. ARNOLD: I believe it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's your sewer?
MR. ARNOLD: I think the sewer is down at the intersection of Rattlesnake ard Collier Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How would sewer get to your property?
MR. ARNOLD: I think we were going to have to probably either bore under the road or you do a
cut.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how are you going to get across the water?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't know, I think -- ifI'm not mistaken, I recall seeing some of the Sembler site
plans that were going through. I think there is water and sewer proposed to go across the bridge stmcture
where we share.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which would be most logical. But your easement that you provioed me
doesn't provide for you to use that for utilities. It only provides for ingress and egress.
So do you know how -- that's why I'm asking, how are you going to get sewer to the proP(rty?
MR. ARNOLD: I think we'll fmd a way. But I'm not exactly sure whether or not it's going to come
through that easement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I imagine you could negotiate that with Sembler, if you already don't have
a reason to demand it. But should have probably been dcme. And you may want to be goodne.; ghbors, and
that's why I brought your uses into play in the first place. There's no sense of making bad neighbors, you
might not get everything you need.
The TIS is only for the shopping center 820, which is 100,000 square feet. And you've said you'd
been willing to cap your uses to the 626 total p.m. peak hour on that.
So John, is that acceptable to the transportation department?
Page 82
---....,.-
16 t 1
August 6, 2009
A5
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For the record, John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning.
626 is acceptable as total trips. But the net new trips, the trips that will actually hit the road after
pass-by reductions, internal capture reductions, are limited to 478.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you call that' one now?
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That would be net new trips.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 478.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So on the mixture of uses combined, can't come up above those two
numbers.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any other questions?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wayne, on Exhibit B in your maximum heights and stuff, could
you just remove the reference to stories for actual height and just say not to exceed? I don't think stories
makes sense on either of them. But if you --
MR. ARNOLD: I don't have a problem with that at all.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think at least take it out of the actual height. Because it has
nothing to do with that. We could argue the--
MR. ARNOLD: I'11 defer to the Planning Commission members. But if we're going to take it out of
actual, we might as well take it out of zoned.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, I see no reason to limit it at three stories. The height
limits it, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem. Does anybody else on the panel?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so take it out of --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the maximum height would be 45 and 55, and 45 and 55 for each.
MR. ARNOLD: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, zoned would be 45. Yeah, for each, I know what you mean.
Got it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything before we get staff report?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Wayne.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just before you go on, it would be zoned over parking, right? To
include parking, right?
MR. ARNOLD: I think it's just going to n
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,just45 feet.
MR. ARNOLD: -- the height. It is the height.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. All right.
MS. ZONE: Good afkrnoon..Melissa Zone, PrincipaLRlann.er.with the Department of Zoning and _ _.._ . _
Land Development.
As mentioned by the applicant's agent, Wayne Arnold, this is in a mixed use activity center
subdistrict, activity center number seven, which allows the mixture of commercial with the ALF and/or if
wanted to residential.
The subject site, we had it up on the visualizer, but just for the record I'd like to say that the subject
Page 83
1611 i\5
A.ugust 6, 2009
.!
site is on the east side of Collier Boulevard. And it's about approximately 660 feet north of
Rattlesnake-Hanunock Road.
The residents who attended the neighborhood information meeting afterwards had contacted me.
They held a meeting with their group and it said that they had reviewed everything, and consistent with
Commissioner Homiak, it said that they had supported the uses that were being presented today.
If there's any questions that you would like to address, I'd be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, this will be your easiest meeting. Thank you.
MS. ZONE: I appreciate it, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure -- there's no public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, short rebuttal? I'm sure you probably want to rebut
something. You're comfortable?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sitting, I'm happy, I'm in a good place right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After what we put you through today, you deserve it. Anyway, go ahead.
Wayne, anything else?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't. I'll answer any other questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question.
On the needs analysis that was done for this proposal, it was extremely limited and didn't include
lots of available both built and unbuilt space within two miles of this project. Can you tell me why you
thought it was appropriate to exclude?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, neither Rich nor I prepared this document. And the person who did is no
longer on the project team. But at the time we had that discussion, and it's our recollection that because of
the size of the parcel and the square footage of the 100,000 square feet we're asking for that we were
somewhere in that neighborhood, the community center type shopping center range in terms of how the
ULI standards typically are applied.
And in that context regional shopping opportunities such as the Super Wal-Marts of the world and
Super Targets and K-Marts and larger box stores were excluded from that. That's what Rich and I seemed
to remember.
I think too, and I touched on it earlier, I think one of the distinguishing factors here is really our
proximity to the hospital and the college. Because I think those really do set this up a little bit differently
than some other sites.
And I think too when you keep in mind the shape of things on the east side of Collier Boulevard,
you don't really have many commercial opportunities that are in the ground yet as you travel all the way
from Collier/U.S. 41 intersection north all the way to the interstate. Very, very few.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But this isn't a project that's going to come out of the ground. This is
a spec project. This isn't something that's going to come out of the ground tomorrow.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, it isn't one that's coming out of the ground tomorrow, but I think there's a
very realistic opportunity.fuat you will see sornething.he.re..b.efore you would see things occurring. two miles.
away, because ofthe synergy of having the hospital in such close proximity. I think that does distinguish
this project from a lot of others that are in that two-mile radius.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so the record's clear, on this report, on this demand analysis that was
provided, I read that, and the more I read, the angrier I got. And I realized this wasn't a bad project. And if
the owner decides he wants to build something, that's fine, because he's got to deal with the market
Page 84
.._-_.,_.._.~
16 I r A 5
August 6, 2009
conditions and the government. He really doesn't need to be involved in regulating lease rates. So why are
we in that program in the first place?
But I don't believe that that report offers any basis to help you. In fact, if! had to rely on that report,
I'd be asking you questions that may not end up giving you the best outcome.
So I'm going to dismiss that report as not applicable from my reading of this and from my voting
on this project, as I don't believe it is something we really need to go get into to approve this project. So
that's where I am on that.
Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, no public speakers, so we will close the public hearing and
entertain a motion.
Is there a motion -- oh, let's just go discussion first, I'm sorry.
There was a series of stipulations discussed during this brief presentation. One was capping the
total trips, p.m. peak hour to 626, and capping the new trips to 478.
Under some of the changes that occurred within the document, we would strike all the references
to groups under the SCI listings.
Under No. 5812, we would exclude outdoor -- we'd take the word outdoor entertainment out -- or it
would say outdoor entertainment, excluding amplified music, or some language to that effect that we've
used in the past, and that will come back to us on consent.
We'll delete items 5983, 5984, and 5989.
And the height designations will read maximum zoned height 45 feet, and maximum actual height
of 55 feet.
And I think there were some small changes to the SIC section that Karen was talking about. We'll
check those on consent. But I believe that's everything.
Does anybody have anything that was missed?
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, maybe I misunderstood what you said. You made a reference to
striking all the groups?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All the word groups. You guys said the word groups to clarifY Karen's
concern. You're just going to take the word groups out. All the uses stay there.
MR. ARNOLD: That was only under the CF tract for the 8051 land use. It wasn't -- the way I heard
it, it was for all of them, but I think it was only specific to the 8051.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that right? That's what we understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Does that work for you, Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then under 8051, that will apply to that. I was just trying to match
what Karen's concern was.
Okay, everybody understand everything?
Melissa, you squared off on everything we said?
MS. ZONE: Yes, I am. Thank you.
CHAIRMANSTRAIN:.With that, is there a motion?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not going to make a motion, I'm going to make a comment.
Because I probably will stand alone in this. But for me, if there's a motion to approve this, I will vote
against it. Because I think we have -- because this is just a speculative rezone.
When you consider the millions of square feet of built and unoccupied commercial space available
Page 85
1611 t\~5
August 6, 2009
in this county and you add to that the approved but unbuilt commercial, I don't see any need for this. I think
we should be thinking about taking care of what already exists here. I think we're going to run inlo a
problem with blight in this county, and that further speculative zoning is just not to our benefit, to the
community's benefit.
I'm not saying they can't come up with a good project here, I'm sure they can, ifthey find a CCRC
or they find a bank that wants to go there or a restaurant, whatever, I think that's the appropriate time for
projects like this to come back. I think we need to see real projects and not spec projects, because I think
speculation has gotten us into a lot of the problems that we have today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question with regard to that. Is that our role, to really
question that, or are we allowed to do that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I guess each of us can vote individually why we do or not. I don't
follow that line of thinking. But then Ms. Caron, if she has stated her reasons, she has a right to, so she can
vote the way she wants. She stated her reasons why she's voting no. And if the applicant wants to challenge
that reason in front of the BCC, then it's up to him or her or whatever --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, the reason I made the comment is because what she said made
a lot of sense to me. But I was just wondering if that was a legitimate reason, if they meet all the
requirements of the LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know of a reference in the LDC offhand. Does anybody else, that
applies under such criteria? Because if they're zoned in the GMP with the ability to go forward and they're
asking for the zoning consistent with the GMP, I don't know what grounds --
MR. SCHMITT: It's an evaluation made through the comprehensive plan. It's in the comprehensive
plan, the future land use map noted as such for suitable development. That's when that criteria is
considered.
But certainly it's your personal opinion and if you want it so noted, I'11just have to turn to the
County Attorney whether that is something that can be legally defended.
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But again, that's what -- we're nine individuals today -- we're less tlum
nine. But normally we are. And we have our own reasons. As long as we state them on the record, I think
that's everybody's entitlement, so -- yes, sir?
MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, I probably can't talk Commissioner Caron out of her thoughts on
this issue, but I would keep in mind that when you look at the land use pattern as you travel north on
Collier Boulevard, you do not have an abundance of commercial opportunities there. And you have this
emerging market that's associated with the hospital and the need for many things: Retail, office, medical.
And those are options for people.
And keep in mind too, what the county does on its road program, access changes. And what were
very functional sites one day in time, access changes, markets change, and you have to be able to respond to
this.
I mean, even this process which has been a fairly straightforward zoning request takes a year or so
to react to that market change. And to have to spend a year of uncertainty to do that I don't think is fair to a
property owner when they have land that's been designated actj'Lity center and does have.the.pmsp::ct.fQf
coming forward with a very legitimate development proposal.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. What I'm saying doesn't take away any of his rights as a
developer or an owner of this piece of property.
And frankly, you probably could have changed my mind if there had been a legitimate market
analysis that showed what you're speculating now. And that's all I can consider it is that there isn't anything
Page 86
.---,.--
Autu~ 6~ ~&9 A 5
__ that there's nothing on that side of the road that can accommodate what you're trying to put on this piece
of property. I mean, that there's a dearth of opportunity out there.
And again, you know, this is -- you've already got an opinion from the County Attorney that it is
not defensible, so not for you to worry.
I think we have a problem in this county. I think it's only going to get worse. And we're doing
nothing as a community and as a planning organization, as staff, as county commission, to even attempt to
address this.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, in one last ditch attempt to have you change your vote, because I
really would love to be on the consent agenda, the market -- the free market system will work in this
particular case. And if we haven't learned anything in the last year or two about financing, there's not going
to be a bank out there who's going to loan money to build on this site unless you have a real viable buyer or
real viable tenants. So you're going to -- we're not going to go -- you don't have to worry about our going
and building a building and hoping it will come, because we'll never get that financed.
So I think that the market system will take care of it and the financing system will take care of that.
So there won't be exacerbating problems with more vacant buildings.
So, I mean, I think we're -- we need to be in a position, as Wayne said, to respond when someone
comes. If the bank comes and says I would like to be there and you've already told me you may not have a
problem with a bank, I don't know if I can keep a bank around for a year to get through this process.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, the other thing is that what you're really getting down to is a zoning
moratorium. And we went through a moratorium. It was publicly vetted, it went to the board, ultimately the
board decided not to go that direction. So I'm not sure n I mean, unless the board wants to reconsider, given
current economic conditions just stopping all rezoning until what we have is built out, I'm not sure where
we're going with this.
I mean, we can do the same reason for pretty much any rezoning petition that comes here, both
residential and commercial, and my answer's always going to be the same, no. And we'll just be moving
things from the summary agenda to the regular agenda. That's all this is accomplishing.
A recommendation to the board that they consider some sort of moratorium on new projects until
we get through the backlog, that's a different issue. But from a policy stand -- your objection is more of a
policy reason than a reason under the Land Development Code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that in mind, we need to vote on this. And maybe, Ms. Caron, if
you can consider that the ultimate outcome is only to bring this onto the regular agenda, which will just kill
more staff time, more BCC time, everybody else, I'm not sure that's the right thing to do.
I'm just trying to suggest --
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't think it's going to demand more staff time, so--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they'll have to attend for that. And someone's going to have to pay
for the --
COMMISSIONER CARON: They have to attend anyway. Somebody always has to be there. It
could get pulled by somebody else for some other reason, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was trying to get us in uniform.
With that in mind, is there a motion made? Ms. Homiak, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK~l'llmaIce a motion to appmvePIJDZ,2008-AR-12773.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are the motion and second maker accepting the stipulations that were read
out earlier?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
Page 87
16 11 j A 5
August 6, 2009
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-1.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 7-1.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we lost Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where did he go?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He disappeared.
Okay, thank you.
Item #11
NEW BUSINESS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll move into the -- well, there's no old business, so
we'll move into new business.
And one item that -- the fust one up would be the request by Bruce Anderson.
MR. SCHMITT: You want to cover first the rescheduling of the meeting?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just get Bruce up here. It will just take a little bit.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay, get rid of Bruce first then, okay.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, hi.
MR. ANDERSON: Commissioners.
My name's Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress Law Firm. And I'm here today to
practice preventive law, trying to prevent a problem from occurring.
The hometown democracy constitutional amendment gets voted on in November, 2010. Under the
current compo plan hearing schedule, the board is scheduled to hold their final adoption hearing on
September 23rd. That leaves a time gap of only 40 days under the current hearing schedule before
hometown democracy gets voted on.
If it is approved it becomes affected immediately and no amendments to a comprehensive plan can
be approved unless they -- adopted unless they have fust gone through a referendum vote, a countywide
vote. u___ __ .__.".
And the proponents of hometown democracy have on their website that the votes would only be
held in conjunction with general elections. So it would be another two years beyond November, 20 I 0
before these applicants who -- some who filed in 2007 ever got their day in court, so to speak.
And what I'm here to ask you today is you all will have a transmittal hearing this fall, and then later
in 20 10 you will have your own adoption hearing. So you get to look at these amendments twice.
Page 88
. A5
lkglS~, 2009
And what I am asking you to do today is to give an indication, a vote that if the county commission
decided to rearrange their hearing schedule to try to shorten the comprehensive plan amendment hearing
schedule, that you would waive holding a consent agenda hearing on the first transmittal portion of the
compo plan amendments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, you're asking for waiving consent on transmittal or adoption?
MR. ANDERSON: Transmittal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we still have consent on adoption then.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that help you? Why wouldn't --
MR. ANDERSON: Well, right now you're scheduled to hold your transmittal consent agenda
hearing on December 3rd. And the board is scheduled to hold their first transmittal hearing January 19th.
And if we could, we could move the hearings up so that the board could hold their hearing in
November, as early as November, instead of having to wait till January.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why is -- just out of curiosity, Mr. Schmitt, if we have our hearing on
October 20th, the next regular hearing of the Planning Commission would be the first meeting in
November. Why would we have a consent not until December?
MR. SCHMITT: Those dates were based on availability of the board room and based around your
schedule. I don't have the rest of your planning schedule in front of me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I -- okay.
MR. SCHMITT: I understand. But the point is -- and I've already e-mailed each ofthe planning
commissioners, and I e-mailed Bruce as well.
It's somewhat a moot point, because there's only one day in November that the board is available,
and there's no days in December. So the intent was for Bruce wanting to move those BCC meetings into
November or December and then therefore compress the entire schedule from there forward.
It's just not doable. I don't have any dates for the board until the 19th.
Now, normally the -- and you asked why the difference. It's because in most cases you've got a
two-day meeting and then we're bringing stuff back in consent. There's nine -- I think there's nine or 10
petitions in this cycle, which are pretty extensive. And we have to go back and clean those up and prepare
the ordinances and bring them back for your review.
But I don't have the schedule in front of me. And I know we've spent a lot of time putting this
schedule together, based on availability of this room and availability around your calendar and the board's
calendar.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, rather than -- see, first of all, when I started on this task
of trying to understand this, I always knew we have a transmittal and an adoption, so we get two bites at the
apple. For some reason I thought the consent that you were trying to avoid was the one for adoption, which
to me wasn't as critical as the one for transmittal.
But let's back up here. Ifwe had our transmittal hearing and your issue was the 19th or the 20th of
October and all we had to do was get yours prepared for consent as an assist to your concern by November
5th, which would be our meeting right after that, then we still could have our consent on your one item.
And I don't know why we couldn't get comprehensive staff to do over a two-week -- it's almost two weeks
__to,.get oueitem done, instead_of t.he,.J.rlu:lle.transmittal. _
MR. SCHMITT: But his point here is he wants to move the BCC hearings, the January and
February meetings into November and December. That's what Bruce wants to do.
And then he wants to move the entire schedule forward from there. It's still a moot point, because
even in July, even if! did your meetings in June, the board is not going to meet in July for comprehensive
hearings. They have normally one meeting in July, board meeting, and then we do budget workshops in
Page 89
6 AS"
Atgus16,~009
July, and the board doesn't meet in August.
So I can't get there from here, regardless. And September -- in fact the board, I'm not -- I would tell
you the board is not going to be happy in September of 20 I 0 when they usually deal with two September
meetings, two budget meetings and now two compo planning meetings. September is going to be hellacious
for them to begin with. Unless they decide to meet in August of201O. So can we--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, what subject is -- I mean, what are you -- what kind of thing are
you bringing in that's so -- that seems to be such a problem that we've got to move the entire schedule in the
county to accommodate it? I mean, that's a big task. What is it you're doing, can you tell us?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, yeah, I'm trying to avoid my clients getting delayed and everybody else
in their projects not being able to go forward until it's voted on two years later.
MR. SCHMITT: And I -- we haven't even seen the referendum language yet. I don't even know if it
will impact anybody that's gone through transmittal.
And I know Bruce says it goes in effect immediately. And I don't even know if that -- we've gotten
any final decision on that or ifit goes in the first of the year.
MR. ANDERSON: I've got the language. The last sentence says this amendment shall become
effective immediately upon approval by the electors of Florida.
MR. SCHMITT: I think one would argue, if you're already in the process, you've already gone
through transmittal, and we would go back to DCA and basically ask, well, how does that impact a petition
that's already gone through transmittal and now is ready to go through adoption?
And as Bruce noted, the last meeting for the board is September 23rd. And yes, it's four to five
weeks prior to the vote.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, his biggest hurdle is going to be to get the board to move, right?
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
MR. ANDERSON: And I'm just asking--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if the board moves, can you just come back and we'll figure out
a way to get -- accommodate their new date if they decide to move?
MR. SCHMITT: If the board directs to move the meetings, we'll look at the schedule and tell the
board. Then you're going to -- if you're going to move these dates, here's what you're impacted by.
Now, I have the December calendar in front of me for December, 2009. I don't have all the way out
to 2010. But I can tell you, September -- August the board doesn't meet. And September are the two budget
hearings, and two BCC hearings. Normally the first BCC hearing is a two-day hearing. So I don't -- and I
do not think we'll be able to get the board scheduled for July hearings.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, what -- Bruce isn't asking for us to waive consent for just his
client. Now he's -- from what you said, you want all the transmittals to be waived for consent.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, yeah. They have to all be transmitted together.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know that. But if we could get one read early just to -- now you're
asking for the whole transmittal to be read.
You know, if the BCC wants to go along with it, we'll have to figure out a way to accommodate it.
But I -- what do you think, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think if you do it for Bruce, you have to do it for every
other applicant.
MR. ANDERSON: Yeah.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, let me throw this up, because it also impacts the next on that schedule.
We're talking the Immokalee Area Master Plan which would have to be moved, which is another hearing.
Because we don't bring those back to the board for adoption until in January, which again is a compo plan
amendment.
Page 90
16 i 1 A 5
August 6, 2009
And I'm dealing -- I've got two cycles going pretty much simultaneously. I've got the nine or 10
petitions, I've got the Immokalee Master Plan following that, and then I have the RLSA GMP amendments
that are going to be following that.
And if everybody wants to beat hometown democracy, I'd best better tell the board next summer
we'll be meeting June, July and August.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know what we might do? If this is such a concern, why don't
you bring the subject up to the board, not as telling them to change their schedule, but fmding out from
them if they want all the schedules in the county changed on the concern over this, if it's a big enough
concern to the five of them.
Then ifthey do, then we're all going to have to rework everything. And staffs going to have to
come back with proposals to everybody all over again. So the whole thing's going to change.
So I don't know if we should be the right party to start that ball rolling, because it isn't going to be
our call in the end. I don't -- if the BCC says we've got to hear stuff, we've got to hear stuff.
And Bruce, I don't know what else to say.
Anybody else got any ideas? Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, my idea is, I mean, this is all predicated on the voters
approving something and expressing their will that something be done. And so why should we be ahead of
time saying that well, we're not going to like what the voters may do so we're going to try to get around it. I
would just say leave things the way they are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only thing I can tell you is we've got to follow the BCC
direction, so --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, that too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's what I was going to say. Bruce, you're starting at the
bottom working up. Start with the commissioners, and if they tell us to have meetings, we'll have the
meetings.
MR. ANDERSON: I was requested to bring it to the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you were?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. And we're requesting you bring it to the commission.
MR. SCHMITT: I could tell you basically if the board directs for me to compress the schedule,
your schedule will be adjusted. I mean, I back plan from when I can get them to meet.
And the difficult part here is I've got -- certainly Bruce is interested in the private petitions. But the
impact to the county is also the Immokalee Area Master Plan and the RLSA amendments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, does--
MR. SCHMITT: And in fact the EAR-based amendments. If you want to go down -- even 2011 we
go into another EAR, evaluation and appraisal report, which then we have follow-on amendments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce?
MR. ANDERSON: One key difference, please. All the private applicants paid a fee to have their
applications reviewed and acted on. None of these others did.
_ _____~--.~-. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, the.people telling you to take it to.usnrst, was it staff or was it the
Board of County Commissioners?
MR. ANDERSON: It was you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it was me. Thank you. I don't remember you asking the question.
Okay, well, that's good.
MR. SCHMITT: Bruce's original request was to move the consent agenda item, which would
Page 91
1 6 I 1 i A.5
-;"ugust t, 2009
allow for everything else to move.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Well, then yeah, if you asked me that, I would have told you to
come here first. Because the BCC usually doesn't involve themselves with our consent agenda item.
Okay, I'm a little -- yeah, this is more involved than I think we probably spoke about.
I don't know what to say. Does anybody else?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it is up to the Board of County Commission to see if we
should hustle and try to beat, as Paul says, the will of the people. I mean, I'm not sure this is a good thing to
even be doing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Has there been, Mr. Klatzkow, any discussion about -- in the legal
community about what will happen if the language says it's adopted immediately? What happens to things
in the pipeline, do they just all die?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I mean, you know, the development community has a doom and gloom
attitude towards this, that the whole State of Florida is going to go toes up because of it. I don't know if
that's going to happen or not. But it's been a very negative reaction among the legal community. Mostly
because, well, we make money at this, when you come right down to it, to be blunt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, this is -- I'm starting to try to remember what we talked about. And
this is the issue where you were going to go to the commission and ask them if we could move up our
consent agenda. And I suggested no, you come back and ask us if we can move up our consent agenda, that
would be simpler.
Okay, now I understand. But what I'm seeing in this presentation that Joe had here with the yellow
highlights a few minutes ago, it's gone right now, that document, you're moving up not only us, but you're
going to have to move up the BCC and everybody -- and all those particular meetings they have as well; is
that right?
MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, that was the whole point of you all not having your consent agenda
hearing on transmittal, that that would enable it to get to the board two months earlier, none otherwise
provided for in this schedule.
MR. SCHMITT: And I will again tell the board, they have one day available. What did I say, one
day in November and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if the board--
MR. SCHMITT: I think we found one day in November and no days in December for the board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the board decides that they're going to want to move forward with this to
do the avoidance that some people are concerned about, we've got nothing -- we can only follow what their
direction is, Bruce. But -- and I think it is good you came to us first for the discussion. And that was what
my intent was, so thank you.
I completely forgot this was the same discussion on the same issue. It's bigger than what I had
thought. This is -- I can't move the BCC agenda, only they can.
MR. ANDERSON: No, right, right.
MR. SCHMITT: And if the board directs they don't want to do it in September, they're not going to
meet in August, or in July, t.hey're going to have to agree to meet:n July on dates that they normally do not. ,. _
meet in the summer.
And that's -- we will just have to have direction from the board, and I will then back plan from
there.
MR. ANDERSON: How can I accurately and fairly represent what your feelings are to the board?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as I'm concerned, we serve at the will of the board, and whatever
Page 92
16 11 A 5
August 6, 2009
they direct to do, we'll do.
That's my thoughts. Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exactly.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're the elected officials. They're the ones that should make the
decision what's in the best interest of the voters in this county in regards to a political issue, which is what
this is.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bruce. Appreciate you coming to us first, thank you. Even
though I forgot all about it. Old age is really tough sometimes.
Before we go to -- before we go to the mobility plan, the dates that you were asking me about
earlier, Joe, this is for the floodplain management discussion that's going to be postponed from next --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Wednesday.
We'll have to make a motion to move that to whatever date, because we made a motion to move it
to that date in the first place.
So the dates were August 25th, which is probably a good date, because it's between our Planning
Commission meetings. The other date was September 9th, and that is again between our Planning
Commission meetings. And then the next three dates are all close to a planning -- well, no, they're again --
yeah, they're all between Planning Commission meetings.
So we have the dates August 25th, September 9th, or September 21 st, 22nd, or 25th. It would be
8:30 in the morning in this room. Probably be a lengthy meeting.
What's the pleasure of the board? Let's start with the--
MR. SCHMITT: Let me -- I've got 21 September, but I note 21 September you're already booked
for AUIR. So I have to question that date so -- I show you for AUIR on the 21 st.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I got that too.
MR. SCHMITT: 21 st and the 23rd.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that week's out. So let's look at the 9th of September or August 25th.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't code enforcement on the 25th?
MR. SCHMITT: 24th is the CEB.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Code enforcement?
MR. SCHMITT: 25th would be a Friday.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: August or --
MR. SCHMITT: September.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's--
MR. SCHMITT: August 25th is a Tuesday.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, August 25th or September 9th. Those are the two dates right now.
Does anybody have a preference?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: August 25th.
.COMMISSIONER CARON: AugusL .
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine with me. Anybody else?
MR. SCHMITT: September 7th is Labor Day, if you're thinking about--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's August 25th, Joe.
MR. SCHMITT: -- fun in the sun.
August 25th?
Page 93
16 11
August 6, 2009
A 5: '
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, let's put it down as the 25th.
So the 12th -- we'll need a motion to continue -- yeah, to further continue the meeting on August
12th to 8:30 in the morning on August 25th in this room.
MR. KLATZKOW: And this will be all day?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It'd be an all day most likely, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved by me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Schiffer.
Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron.
Ail those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0.
Okay, next item on the plan was your discussion, Brad, of the mobility plan.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I just was watching the commission meeting where Nick
brought up the fact that they're going to be doing that study and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you read it in my column.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it looked interesting to me. Oh, and I must have read it in
Mark's column.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I just wondered what involvement they have. I know that it
ultimately comes back to us, but the concept of starting to study land use in terms of utility or in this case
vehicle miles I think is a great idea, an excellent idea. So just -- Joe, just bring us up to speed. Are we
involved in that?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. That will be in -- it's the master mobility plan and it will be an element of
the evaluation and appraisal report. We will be coming to you to talk about the concept of the forthcoming
or upcoming EAR, and that will be one element that we'll be addressing as far as mobility master plan and
certainly addressing issues with development in eastern Collier County.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It says it does establish land use and stuff like that.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is this going to be done in a public forum? Is this a staff --
MR. SCHMITT: Well, the EAR process is a public process, both public participation and it goes
through all the vetting through the various public hearings, through the l'Janning Commission and the
board.
Then it has subsequent and follow-on GMP amendments, if they're so approved by the board and
so directed by the board.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is planning staff involved in this process too?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Mike DeRuntz, and -- I'm sorry, Mike DeRuntz. Poor Mike. I was just
Page 94
16 I 1 i A 5
August 6, 2009
thinking about him because we need him back.
Mike Bosi is -- will be working on that, along with the -- as we finalize the -- VanBuskirk's project.
What am I thinking of? The --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: His data base?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Anyways, I just lost it, the name of the project.
But yes, it will be Mike Bosi working with Nick primarily on this.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess if you could, just make us aware of meetings that
they're having, public meetings --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- where we would be able to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Better yet, when Nick gets this plan together, could he just come and give
us a quick briefing?
MR. SCHMITT: I think Nick needs to come and, yeah, give you a concept brief.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I know he doesn't like to come here anymore, but maybe we could
drag him in.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, we'll just drag him here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. Thanks.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I do feel shunted by him.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Today -- he was supposed to be here this morning and he called
on the way and said he's not going to come. He said he was embarrassed all the questions we were going to
ask him, so --
COMMISSIONER CARON: More important people on hold, huh?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, you wanted to discuss the resolution format?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. Over the past month the issue came up between County Attorney's
Office and zoning staff on whether to place resolutions of denial before the CCPC. And as a result of that,
the zoning staff and the County Attorney's Office reevaluated the process. And after speaking with the
chairman, we are proposing that for all matters where you make a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners, that we place a draft resolution on your consent agenda rather than placing it on your
regular agenda.
So you'll see it for the first time on your consent agenda. However, all the backup will be provided
in the regular presentation, all the exhibits that would go with that.
The other proposed change is on -- and this was recommended by the zoning staff, is to eliminate
your executing the findings of fact for conditional uses and a few other items where you have paperwork
that you have to process.
And in lieu of that, staff is going to provide a report as to the findings that you made during your
meetings. So those are two we perceive as big changes, and we are presenting it to you for your
consideration and hopefully approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To sum up, the resolutions that you normally put in our package, because
they basically are resolutions based for approval.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That which can certainly taint in its opinion of maybe some people of the
outcome of the meeting. Instead we're going to have a resolution produced based on the outcome of the
meeting by the consent agenda be part of the consent process.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's number one.
Page 95
6111 A5~
Alust 6, ~009
And the findings of fact sheets that we fill out and sign our names to that are rather vague and leave
us no opportunity to utilize in a manner that we can be more descriptive, we're going to use a fmdings
report by staff in lieu of that based on the actions that we take at our meeting; is that --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they'll both be presented at consent agendas for our confumation that
they do reflect the meeting.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The fmdings of fact?
MR. BELLOWS: No, the--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do we know then if staff --
MR. BELLOWS: -- conditional use findings are going to be similar to the rezone findings, the way
you normally do. If you have a problem with one of the findings as noted in the staff report that you
receive, you put it on the record and we carry that forward in the executive sununary.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that work for everybody? Anybody have --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fme.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- any concerns?
It's more cleanup for the system, and that's great.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay, great.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I think you got the consensus that you need.
With that, that's the last thing we have, except there's no public for comment. And so we're looking
for a motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by Mr. Midney. All in favor, signifY by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, we're out of here.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the
Chair at 3:47 p.m.
~O~LI~f~
~ STRAIN, Chairman
Page 96
16 11 I~i 5
August 6, 2009
These minutes approved by the board on 75/).0/01 as
presented L or as corrected_
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 97
V'
August 19,2009
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF TJ 6 I t A 6
RECEIVED CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD _ /:,
SEP 23 2009 OF COLLIER COUNTY Fiala r
Board of County Commissioners Naples, Florida Halas
Henning
August 19,2009 Coyle
Coletta
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Contractor Licensing
Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:08 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with
the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Richard Joslin
Michael Boyd
Eric Guite' (Absent)
Lee Horn
Terry Jerulle
Kyle Lantz
Thomas Lykos
Patrick White
(.~ b\~~D but
o 1,
11 A (\",
~\ ~Y1'
ALSO PRESENT:
Patrick Neale, Attorney for the Board
Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney
Michael Ossorio, Contractor Licensing Supervisor
"
Page 1
,
CopieS to:
Ib~fl A61
August 19,2009
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd
like to call to order the August 19th, 2009 Collier County Contractor
Licensing Board Meeting.
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'd like to open the meeting starting with roll call starting to my
right.
MR. JERULLE: Terry Jerulle.
MR. LANTZ: Kyle Lantz.
MR. L YKOS: Tom Lykos.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Richard Joslin.
MR. BOYD: Michael Boyd.
MR. WHITE: Patrick White.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Are there any additions or deletions to
the agenda, staff?
MR. JACKSON: Good morning. For the record, Ian Jackson,
Collier County Contractor Licensing.
We have one deletion. New business, letter A, we're going to
delete that. That's going to be continued to October. Roger Boucher.
And that's all.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I need a motion to approve the
agenda as amended.
MR. L YKOS: So moved, Lykos.
MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We have a motion and a second on the
floor.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
Page 2
16 I r' A 6 i
August 19,2009
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries for the agenda.
Okay, the board members, have you looked at the meeting of--
the minutes for the June 17th meeting? Any additions or deletions or
changes, or has everyone looked at it? If they have and it's all in line,
there's no discussion, I need a motion to approve it.
MR. L YKOS: Motion to approve, Lykos.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion.
MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Second, Boyd. Motion and a second.
All in favor, say aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. LYKOS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries.
Okay, under discussion we have an end of the month report for
June and July. It's in your packet, gentlemen.
Just for the sake of opening this up, I see where the number of
citations in this July period was quite high compared to the number of
days that the staff is actually working out in the field. So obviously
there's a lot of problems going on out there which investigators are
picking up on.
Page 3
1611A61
August 19,2009
Mr. Ossorio, do you have anything to add to this?
MR. OSSORIO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record,
Mike Ossorio, Collier County Contractor Licensing Supervisor.
Not actually. You know we're on a reduced workweek, we work
32 hours a week. And so far this year we brought in $431,503. And
we're going to be doing our annual renewals for local and registered
contractors at the end of the month, so we're going to be sending about
4,000 renewal letters out.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And there's still what, three more months
yet to continue before the end of the year? Is that when this starts, in
September or October?
MR. OSSORIO: September. But October 1st will be the new
year, so we have one more month.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: There's a good chance that licensing
could bring in a lot of revenue.
MR. OSSORIO: Well, we anticipate -- if you looked at the last
year's numbers we did -- I think we renewed 3,000 contractors in that
one month. Maybe I don't anticipate having 3,000, but I anticipate
maybe having 2,000, so that's substantial.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, I think your people are doing a
heck of a job, Michael.
Next item on the agenda is reviewing of upcoming fee
schedules. We had fee schedules that were done for different types of
fees regarding the county and regarding all different phases, and this
was done way back in 2007. And staff has asked for an increase in the
fees.
So Michael, if you want to take the floor and kind of elaborate
on this a little more.
MR. OSSORIO: Thank you.
Just to give you an overview real quick, our office is comprised
of four investigators. We have one full-time investigator in the City of
Naples, one full-time in the City of Marco Island, one for Golden Gate
Page 4
161,A6'
A"hgust 1 <t, 2009
Estates, and one for the unincorporated Collier County. We have three
staff members that do registrations in our office and do the day-to-day
operation of our licensing board.
In 2001 we elected to raise some fees. And you have a copy of
that resolution in 2001. And basically I'll read a little bit about it on
paragraph two. This is a resolution that was signed some months later.
The extreme poor state of current economic conditions for the
construction industry takes us in an extremely inopportune time to
raise fees, charges for the industry that suffer from economic
downturn.
Basically what you said to the Board of County Commissioners
is that we're going to raise fees; we think that the licensing department
is vital in the health, safety and welfare of the community in Collier
County and the City of Naples and Marco Island. So we did raise
some fees. It wasn't a lot, it wasn't a substantial fee increase, but it was
a fee increase.
But you also told us if indeed that if it wasn't enough, make sure
you come back and ask for more. Unfortunately this is -- we're in
2009. Our fees have not sustained our department. We incurred some
more expenses. We haven't had a reduction in staff but we had a
reduction in work hours of32 hours of workweek.
And the building department, Bob Dunn, did hire a company
called PMG and did an RFP. And basically we spent a substantial lot
of amount of money to go over our department and to view what we
need to be self-sufficient as a licensing department. And these reflect
on the -- what you have on the sheet in front of you, the draft.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So this draft that we have in front of us is
the analysis that PMG did?
MR. OSSORIO: Yes.
And unfortunately -- I would give (sic) it to you earlier, but we
just got this the other day. So when you're going through this the first
time, I'm actually going through it the first time.
Page 5
1611 'A61
kigust rlJ, 2009
But I did notice some changes, and I would like to go ahead and
get a consensus on the board after you look at the numbers and I make
little changes of my recommendations, that we adopt a resolution. And
we'll go to DSAC with it next week or next couple of weeks and then
back to the Board of County Commissioners for final approval or
maybe go to CBIA.
But the numbers are not that bad. I thought they'd be worse, but
they're not. And I want you to take a look at the first page. I thought
that maybe we can take a look at it. And that is on Page 5.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: There's a Page 4 also.
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, there's a Page 4, but you can turn to Page
5. There's a Page 6, too, but you can turn to Page 5.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sorry.
MR. OSSORIO: No problem.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I was looking at the calculation of fees.
Starts on Page 4.
Is the calculation of fees the same as the -- what's on Page 5, or
this is the increase?
MR. OSSORIO: That's just what is a -- one is a new license and
one is a renewal.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I see, okay.
MR. OSSORIO: Okay?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Now I see what you're saying. I gotcha.
MR. OSSORIO: We're on Page 5.
Typically there are two kind of contractors what this board
regulates. There is what you call specialty contractors and there are
tier one contractors, or general contractors, building pool contractors
that have to register with the state.
And when you register with the state there's a lot more
paperwork involved when you register through our office. And
unfortunately I don't think that PMG took that into account.
And you'll see the difference. It says CLE renewal contractor
Page 6
J~ 6 1'1 A 6 '~
August 19,2009
144. And then on the bottom it says CLE renewal specialty, 144.
These fees are exactly the same here. But obviously the CL renew
state registered contractors, we would like to see that go to not 144.25
but 159.25. So basically a $15 increase. And that's exactly what
transpires that we'd have now.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. And this is under renewal
contractor or renewal specialty?
MR. OSSORIO: Renew contractor.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Renewal contractor.
MR. OSSORIO: Yes. So under 144.25 you want to write 159.25.
(At which time, Mr. Horn enters the boardroom.)
MR. OSSORIO: There's a difference between the two. If you are
a specialty contractor, there's less steps to renew than versus if you are
a registered pool contractor, registered general building contractor
there's a lot more involved. We have to make sure you do your
continuing education, your state registration. There's a lot more
paperwork involved on a year-to-year basis.
And that is indicative of what we do now. It's $15 more than it
would be. So I'm just adding $15. So I would like to see that 159.25.
And I will talk to PMG and we'll square that away.
MR. JERULLE: Michael, the 144.25 is the existing fee?
MR. OSSORIO: No. That is the --
MR. JERULLE: That's the new proposed fee.
MR. OSSORIO: And you'll see on the back side.
MR. NEALE: Page 7 and 8 have the current and proposed.
MR. OSSORIO: Page 7 and 8 actually have the current and
proposed.
MR. JERULLE: All right, that's what I'm looking for.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And just for the record, I'd like to make
for the record that Lee Horn has just arrived.
MR. HORN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, continue.
Page 7
11lglttt9,A~ ~
All right, so we have a change on renewal for a licensing
renewal contractor to 159.25.
MR. OSSORIO: Exactly right.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. The other two are going to stay
the same?
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, that's fine.
The next page is Page No.6. And this is a second entity. And
right now the current fee is $50. And the proposed fee is 56.21. And I
don't think PMG realizes that when you do a second entity there's a lot
of things involved. Obviously you have to have a staff meeting. We
have to have the investigator make the packet up, present it to the
licensing board, make copies, bring it to you a week before and
actually present it to the licensing board. So that is a fee that we need
to calculate. And I calculated 43.79. So it went from 56.21 to $100 to
get a second entity, which I think is pretty reasonable. So that fee
would be from 56.21 to $100 even. It's a plus of 43.79.
And the second -- and the last change is on Page 7. And it's state
registration. We have a staff of three. And right now our current -- if
you want a state registration, it's $10. Right now we did $11,000 this
year in state registration. That typically is a one-person full time doing
-- registering state contractors, taking state contractors offhold,
putting contractors -- changing status and updating their insurances.
That is a full-time job on one person.
We get about 60 certificates every day to renew state
contractors, insurances. Mr. Lykos can tell you, you know, they come
and go. The insurance companies, they change their certificates and all
of a sudden we're the certificate holder and we get a fax through the
office.
And the proposed fee is 19.94. And after I looked at the cost, I
anticipate a 30.06 increase, which would be a $50 service. And this is
every two years.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So the 19.94 should move to $50.
Page 8
6111,1A6
lugust ~-b, 2009
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah. And this is state registration for every
two years.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: $25 a year isn't really too bad to keep a
state license active.
MR. OSSORIO: No. As a matter of fact, if you go to
Miami-Dade, it's 79.95, whatever it is.
But this is just at 50. And that will actually help the state
contractors pull building permits quicker, get the insurances into our
office quicker and be better -- be more efficient. So this is what we're
looking at there.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay.
MR. OSSORIO: With that said, I'm done.
I did have Bob Dunn -- Bob Dunn is the building director and he
might want to speak on behalf of what PMG is doing throughout the
industry, without the building review and permitting department, the
fees related to permits as well. This is just relating to contracting
licensing issues.
I did speak to Bob Dunn and he is looking forward to getting this
off, you know, 32 hours of workweek, so he can enforce the code,
instead of not working on Fridays and having unlicensed contractors
word Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Maybe do a little better job on the
hot line as well.
This is going to do this for us. And also, he's also thinking about
bringing another person in our department. Instead of having four
investigators, have five. And this particular person -- hopefully this
person will be more of a workers' compo related individual that is
strictly into class codes, that is trained in class codes that's actually
going to go through books and workers' compo and insurance and
really get down into the bidding of you, the pool contractor bid on the
project and this guy's bid this and how could he do so, because he's
not paying proper insurance. And you make that complaint, we'll have
that tool to do so. So right now we're sketchy with that, and I'm the
Page 9
161~1 A6 1
August 19,2009
only one that actually does that, so we're looking for the future, so
that's what we're looking at.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. And this type of dollars is going
to allow this to happen --
MR. OSSORIO: As far as I know. Bob Dunn may want to speak
about that. But I did think that -- I anticipate these fees going through
DSAC. And I can't speak to the building review and permitting fees,
but for licensing, I anticipate having smooth sailing so that we can
maybe add a staff member and we'll be more self-sufficient.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, Mr. Dunn, do you want to make
some comments?
MR. DUNN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and board members.
Bob Dunn, Building Director.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Pleasure to have you here.
MR. DUNN: We just -- you know, I just want to bring you up to
date on the analysis that's just been completed. This is the first draft.
We have a sub-committee that's going to be reviewing it, DSAC
sub-committee. They're meeting next week. They're going to forward
their recommendation on to DSAC, the full DSAC committee, and
then of course after that we go to the Board of County Commissioners.
We expect that to happen in October.
CHPURMANJOSLIN:Okay.
MR. DUNN: And with your support, you know, ofthis fee
increase -- it's basically a 40 percent increase. With your support and
with a resolution of support, it's going to help us take it before DSAC
and then again to the Board of County Commissioners. So that's why
we're here today, to answer any questions you might have.
And we are going to add an additional investigator. We hope to
have, you know, you know with the increase in fees, that will support
another investigator. And we're going to have everybody go back on
40-hour workweek starting in October.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: October we're going to go back to five
Page 10
l~u~ti~, 2~0~ .~
days a week then.
MR. DUNN: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, super.
MR. DUNN: October. The first week in October.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would that also tie into the fifth man
being added into staff'?
MR. DUNN: The fifth person will be added after -- if we have
approval from the County Board of Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: On that meeting, okay.
MR. DUNN: We're also going to -- during the renewal season
we're bringing a -- we're bringing the administrative staff in at five
days a week on process renewal.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Outstanding.
MR. DUNN: They're working, you know -- every day ofthe
week they have folks coming in to renew and obtain new licenses, so
we're going to let them work on Fridays so it will give them time with
the office being closed to get the licenses processed so we can get the
. .
momes lll.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Outstanding.
Okay, well, I guess with all that said I'm going to need a motion
to approve these changes as far as the fees go, with the upgrades that
Mr. Ossorio and Mr. Dunn have asked us to approve.
MR. JERULLE: Do we have discussions before or after we do
the motion?
MR. NEALE: Discussion after, typically.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, we can do it before, if you like.
We should -- let's -- ask your question first before we make a --
MR. JERULLE: No, I just received this, and you're asking for a
fee increase and you're asking me to approve this. And I haven't really
had a chance to review it and digest it to give my vote.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: From what I could gather, the only fee
increases are the ones that, Michael, you have indicated so far?
Page 11
1611J~6 1
August 19,2009
MR. OSSORIO: This whole draft is a fee increase. There are
some changes to the fee increase.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right.
MR. OSSORIO: You're absolutely right --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So we're looking more for a motion just
to advise us to be able to just --
MR. OSSORIO: Under the code.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- to possibly corne back next month?
MR. OSSORIO: No. Because we're not anticipating having a
board meeting in October -- or actually, we're going to have one in
October, we're not going to have one in September.
And -- but we've been working on these fees for several months.
I mean, we had meetings with PMG, they went through our staff, how
many hours we worked and what we've done. So he did a good job on
this.
And it is short notice and I do apologize, but I got it on Thursday
afternoon, or Wednesday afternoon. The package went out on
Wednesday morning. So it is what it is. But this is what the licensing
board wanted us to do.
Remember the resolution before some of these chairmans were
here before is that you directed us that if we had to raise fees that you
need to corne back with a fee resolution so we could be self-sufficient
and so we could provide health, safety and welfare. So this is what this
fee is, nothing more, nothing less.
MR. L YKOS: I have some questions, in may. Comments,
questions, concerns.
Bob, you know I've been a strong advocate of the licensing
department, not only here but at DSAC and also at the Board of
County Commissioners. And I have some questions.
If you recall, we had a meeting -- CBIA had a meeting in Mr.
Smith's office with you and the budget office, and we addressed our
concerns about allocations. I know those have corne way back from
Page 12
161i A61
August 19,2009
where they were in the past. There were some issues about how the
budgets were prepared. There was a two or three-year lag and created
some issues, especially in a market that was going down. I know those
have been addressed.
My concerns about this fee increase -- and again, let me preface
by saying I support funding this department to fully serve the
community and the licensed contractor. But a couple of comments.
Number one, we know that somewhere between 40 and 50 percent of
the investigations that the staff go on are not for licensed contractors,
they're for -- I hate this term, unlicensed contractors, but people that
are contracting without a license.
I believe that some support for this department should come
from the general fund. I know that's pie in the sky, but there's a direct
benefit to the community that has nothing to do with permit fees or
licensing fees. And I know that this doesn't take that into
consideration. I may be mistaken, but there's no comments in this
report about the general funds supporting license department when
there clearly is a benefit to the community that is not directly related
to contractor fees or permit fees. I think that needs to be addressed,
number one.
Number two, there's 109 percent allocation for overhead. 109
percent addition to direct costs for overhead for support staff. Our
problem was with allocations to begin with. So without seeing the
backup and where they come up with this 109 percent multiplier for
support services and overhead, I have a hard time supporting 109
percent without seeing the backup for it.
I understand you guys are in a tight time frame because you want
to get this in next year's budget and the meeting with that is with the
Board of County Commissioners in October, but I'm going to have a
hard time supporting this without seeing the backup information.
And the third comment I have is we were told that CBIA was
going to be involved in this process, and we haven't been at all.
Page 13
1611 'A61
August 19;-L009
MR. DUNN: Wejust--
MR. L YKOS: I understand. But we haven't been at all. And I
think to support this from a CBIA standpoint, to support this from a
licensing board standpoint, I want to see the backup documentation.
And I want to know that PMG addressed the fact that there's services
being provided to the general public that are not directly related to
licensing permit fees.
MR. DUNN: Well, PMG will be addressing those questions.
They will be coming to the DSAC full committee meeting. We will
have a sub-committee meeting next week with our budget office.
Those numbers will be addressed with the DSAC committee.
And at the meeting, the full meeting with DSAC, this consultant
will be there to answer those questions.
MR. L YKOS: I understand. But you're asking for our approval,
and then you'll take our approval, you'll let the DSAC sub-committee
know that we've approved it and endorsed it, then you'll pass it on to
the Board of County Commissioners that we've endorsed it, and you're
asking us to endorse it without the supporting documentation.
I understand that you're under the gun time-wise, but I don't like
endorsing these calculations without seeing the backup for them.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos, I think you're confusing the
issue here. I'm all for CBIA and I'm all for that section of your
governing body in that case, but I have a hard time trying to say to you
that we have to separate the fact that CBIA is not going to run
licensing or the county.
Now, I understand that they bring in the revenue, and I
understand those licenses and those fees bring in the revenue, but there
are other issues that are out there that need to be addressed besides
CBIA and their involvement as far as what the bottom line is going to
end up saying. Because there are other issues out there, other
contractors out there that aren't in CBIA that want that same answer
also.
Page 14
161" 'A6 1
August 19,~009
So I'm a little confused on your reasoning as far as to increase
the fees that have already been programmed. These were programmed
back in '07. And all we're doing -- at the moment all staffis doing is
asking for a minor increase in order to support the fact of being able to
allow licensing to be able to be self-sufficient.
Now, I understand the general fund and I understand that right
now we are tied into a different fund rather than the general fund,
which I'd like to see us come out of that also. But at the moment it's
not happened. It's going to take a little bit of time before that can
happen.
But I think at the time that we're talking about raising these fees,
I think really now is the time to act on it and the time is of essence that
we do bring on more people in licensing that will handle the
unlicensed contractors and the contractors that are doing things
incorrectly. It's for the jurisdiction, for them to have supervision over
that.
And without -- with the short staff going on right now, there's no
way to fund it. So this is nothing more than a way to try to fund what's
going on here. That's my point. That's my feeling.
MR. DUNN: This is also going to lead into a full-blown fee
schedule ordinance.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure.
MR. DUNN: Right, a contractor licensing fee schedule
ordinance. That's going to have to be approved by the board and the
DSAC committee. This is just a draft and an analysis by the
consultant.
MR. L YKOS: I understand.
MR. DUNN: This is a concept. This is a concept. We're asking
for your guidance that we can go forth now and increase the fees.
MR. OSSORlO: Mr. Chairman, just a quick question. To go
ahead and get ad valorem funds for contractor licensing this year or
the next year, I don't think we have a chance. We have none. And you
Page 15
16 I 1 11 61
August 19,2009
\
know that and I know that. So we can sit here until we're blue in the
face, it's not going to happen.
However, I can tell you ifthese fees are not rectified there's
going to be a major impact in contractor licensing. And I tell you, it's
going to be a major impact in October.
These fees are in the realm of all cities and counties throughout
Florida, and most cities in Florida, they do get compensated for ad
valorem taxes through tax dollars for unlicensed activity. So these fees
are right where they need to be.
If you're looking to self-sufficient contractor licensing for the
upcoming year, this is the time to do it. I know this is a difficult time
for you to look at this, I know it's a difficult time for me because I just
got it on Wednesday afternoon.
But you're asking us to go ahead and wait to see what the Board
of County Commissioners do or DSAC does, it's not going to happen.
We're just not having a board meeting next month and this is why
you're the first line of defense on looking at these items.
MR. WHITE: Few questions, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. White?
MR. WHITE: I appreciate the position you're in with PMG and
the report just coming to you. I appreciate, you know, my fellow
board members' concerns. I have a couple of maybe more precise
questions and observations.
First off, I'd like to start with Pages 7 and 8. And if you could
just go through on the recommended fees and tell us again which of
them, based on the changes, the three changes, which of those are
changing to what on the proposed column?
MR. OSSORIO: Okay, if you're looking at the one -- well, why
don't we just do the -- 7 and 8.
MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
MR. OSSORIO: Okay. And --
MR. WHITE: I think you --
Page 16
16 I 1 A 6 .~
August 19,2009
MR. OSSORIO: The first page -- hang on. I didn't get this from
MR. WHITE: I think one of them is specialty contractor renewal
at 145 that you've suggested should be increased. I'm just trying to
confirm that that's the case.
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, you see the first part -- I have to get my
bearings here. It says Certificate of Competency annual license.
MR. WHITE: Yes.
MR. OSSORIO: And it says and the proposed. You're absolutely
right, the initial fee, the renewal would be 165 and change. 159.25.
MR. WHITE: 159.25 instead of 145?
MR. OSSORIO: Yes. That's the change on that.
MR. WHITE: Because apparently they round it up from 144.25.
MR. OSSORIO: Yes, and I kept it exactly the same, except for I
added 15.
MR. WHITE: So that is the fee for --
MR. OSSORIO: To renew --
MR. WHITE: -- contractor renewal?
MR. OSSORIO: Yes. When I say contractor renewal, I mean tier
one contracting. General contractors, building, residential, registered.
MR. WHITE: Not as it says here, there are two other categories,
specialty contractor and journeyman.
MR. OSSORIO: Yes. Those are --
MR. WHITE: 145 for specialty contractor --
MR. OSSORIO: That has not changed.
MR. WHITE: -- is going to stay the same.
Okay, that's change number one.
The second change I believe you told us about was for second
entity's total cost you wanted was 100.
MR. OSSORIO: And Mr. White, that's on Page 8, and that's on
the bottom. It says second entity fee.
MR. WHITE: Correct.
Page 17
16 I ~1 iA 6 1
August 19,20&9
MR. OSSORIO: It went from 50 to 56. And I'm saying to you
that the PMG, you know, didn't realize that a second entity has to go
in front of the licensing board to get approval, and there's steps
involved on that. We have to spend, you know --
MR. WHITE: I'm not challenging your rationale; I'm just trying
to make sure I got the table right.
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, got it exactly right. It goes from 50 to --
PMG recommendation is 56, my recommendation is 100.
MR. WHITE: Then the third change was for state registration
total cost recommended --
MR. OSSORIO: That's on the same page.
MR. WHITE: -- was 19.94 and you recommended 50.
MR. OSSORIO: Its current is 10, proposed is 20, and my
recommendation is 50.
MR. WHITE: Okay.
MR. OSSORIO: Those are the changes.
MR. WHITE: With that sort of clarified, can you or Mr. Dunn
tell me when the report was actually done by PMG, when they
conducted the study and developed the methodology, some ofthe
history ofthis? I want to know how relevant it is to today's date.
MR. DUNN: We sent out a request for a proposal and a quote a
few months back. I don't have the exact dates with me. But we had I
think four contractors submit it, to do the analysis for the fees.
MR. WHITE: So it's a study that was done over the past four to
six months.
MR. DUNN: Exactly. They've had -- most likely after we
awarded the contract with this person, the company, they've had
approximately four to six weeks to do the analysis, to sit and come in
and meet with all the staff members, with contractor licensing, and a
building department personnel, the planning, the permitting tax.
They've also done, you know, this analysis for Broward County and
Ft. Lauderdale, so they have experience.
Page 18
161'1 A61
August 19,2009
MR. WHITE: Apparently. Because at the bottom of Page 2 --
MR. DUNN: You should see that mistake.
MR. WHITE: I don't know if it's a mistake or not, you're telling
me now it is, that the rates were obtained from the finance department
of Collier County --
MR. DUNN: Exactly.
MR. WHITE: -- as opposed to Broward?
MR. DUNN: Exactly. This is just a draft that was submitted. We
have changes to make to it, and we've sent it out to staff.
And we're also sending it to the board members today to take a
look at the draft, in case you have any recommended changes. And it
will be going to CBIA.
MR. WHITE: You may want to have them -- Page 2, the end of
the second paragraph, it says, the last line, last full line says to ensure
that all polices, it should be I believe policies.
MR. DUNN: Exactly.
MR. WHITE: Okay. I think more generally the concern I have is
that although I support the goal, the process that we're going through
here is one that I'm a little concerned about.
Can you tell me which BCC meeting in October we're actually
planning on going to?
MR. DUNN: Well, actually, it was originally scheduled for the
first meeting in September, that was the 15th, and --
MR. WHITE: The budget?
MR. DUNN: -- we had -- yeah, and we had to move it because
we wanted to make sure we had enough time for DSAC and the
sub-committees and CBIA to take a look at this analysis. So we
actually moved it so now it's going to be in October, it's going to be
the first meeting in October that we're actually going to take the fee
schedule, the recommendation to increase permit fees and contractor
license fees.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So at the moment these fees are your
Page 19
1611~A61
August 19,2009
recommendations as far as what PMG has come up with?
MR. DUNN: That's right.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: What you're asking us to do I think now
is just to give you a direction as far as to go forward with the draft to
complete the analysis, and then come back at some point to get a final
approval from the board as far as the changes that are going to be
made?
MR. DUNN: We're going to take final approval to DSAC, and
we're also going to make -- of course we have to take the ordinance
before the Board of County Commissioners for approval.
MR. WHITE: Can I ask a question about your DSAC
sub-committee?
Are there any representatives of this panel on that
sub-committee?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No.
MR. DUNN: We have a CBIA member, we have -- I don't have
the exact names. We have an architect, an engineer, a building
contractor.
MR. WHITE: You don't have anybody from this Contractor
Licensing Board?
MR. DUNN: Not from this board.
MR. WHITE: Okay.
MR. DUNN: We could invite you. I mean, the first meeting is
going to be next week. They're meeting with the budget office in our
budget department for the building department.
MR. WHITE: Correspondingly, as to the full DSAC, are there
any members of this board that also sit on DSAC?
MR. DUNN: No.
MR. LANTZ: I'd like to just address something on the -- it's
probably more towards Michael.
On the state registration fees, you had -- they had the cost at
19.94. And you said that they were off and there should be an
Page 20
1611 A61
August 19, 2009
additional $30.06 which makes it $50.
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, I see it.
MR. LANTZ: I'm just curious how they could be that far off. I
mean, the other adjustments were, you know, seven percent, eight
percent, but you're saying that they're, you know, 150 percent off. And
I'm just curious how you got to that figure and how --
MR. OSSORIO: Well, when I talked to PMG -- and I'm not
saying that he is Mr. Mark on this, but, you know, unfortunately I'm a
licensing supervisor, I sit there on a daily basis upfront and I register
state contractors. And I think: they're all pretty much state contractors
here. It takes us a lot more time than what it says here on licensing
compliance supervision and customer service, .25 on a biannual rate.
Not just every year.
There's no doubt in my mind I can look at Mr. Lykos and say I
can track you and how many times I went in your certificate, and I'll
bet you I go in there -- remember, I have to maintain all these records.
You know, your qualified business license, I have to make sure that
you're up to date on that. I have to make sure that every two years you
bring me a copy of your license. I have to make sure you have
workers' compo insurance by statute. I have to put you on hold when
your insurance goes out of synch. We have to be the certificate holders
or you will not be able to pull building permits.
MR. WHITE: So which of the subcategories under the state
registration on Page 7 at the top do you see that $30.06 falling into? Is
it more than one category under personnel, is it indirect --
MR. OSSORIO: I would say it's more -- it's the customer service
right here is I would say two-thirds more. And what we did is -- how I
did it was, is that if you take a full-time person, which two-thirds of
our contractors are state certified contractors, there are about eight,
9,000 contractors that are state certified. When I say state certified,
they could be electrical, plumbing, mechanical, whatever the widget
might be.
Page 21
1611A61
August 19, 2009
Is that -- we spend two-thirds of our time keeping track of state
certified contractors on a daily basis. And so I took that number and I
roughly said if it was 5,000 contractors it would be 150,000 or
140,000 per year if they did.
Right now if you can look at July, give you an example, on your
packet -- on your July monthly calculations. This is for the year.
10/1/2008, 7/31/2009. State contractor fees. Right here: 11,040.
We can't conduct business like this. I don't care if you have to go
to CBIA, I don't care if you go to DSAC. 11,040. This is for one year.
MR. LANTZ: What was it the previous year when the renewal
sanction was?
MR. OSSORIO: I have no idea. But I'm only going by year to
year so we'll divide it by two.
MR. LANTZ: But isn't this biannual, so it should be heavily
weighted in one year as opposed to the other year, correct?
MR. OSSORIO: You're absolutely right. I mean, it should be.
We're talking about a budget is for one year.
MR. LANTZ: No, I understand that. But if you're saying you're
processing the state fees, the year that the license --
MR. OSSORIO: I also calculated -- I didn't calculate the 11,000,
I calculated how many contractors might anticipate renewing in an
even year, which would be 6,000. Say 6,000 renewed times 50 is a
number. And you divide that by two, and that's where I came up with
my analysis of my staff time.
MR. WHITE: So kind of going back to the point, is it under
licensing compliance that the bulk of this $30 --
MR. OSSORIO: No, I don't think -- I tried to stay away from
state registration licensing compliance. This is strictly registration;
how we regulate your license as in pulling building permits.
MR. WHITE: Is there something that's missing? Is there a cost
item in here that your $30 should be stuck in? I'm just trying to --
MR. OSSORIO: Yes, I said --
Page 22
16 11 1A6 ~
August 19,2009
MR. WHITE: -- follow their methodology.
MR. OSSORIO: I said to customer service and, you know, if
you're looking at supervisor of personnel, .1 hour, I probably spend
more time than that per one hour dealing with state licensing, getting
their licenses up to date and current.
I'm not here to go ahead and -- I'm not a bean counter, I'm not
PMG, but I can just tell you, that number -- that's where I got my
number from, those two items.
So if you're saying .25 hours, I would say in a whole it -- for
customer service, I would say .75.
And hear me out. I mean, if we approve this, these numbers,
obviously then PMG will have to come back in and make obviously
the grammar mistakes and make the necessary hour changes and we'll
communicate with them. And if there's -- if I'm wrong or he's wrong,
we'll amend it. I'm not here to belabor the point, but it is what it is.
We're not having a meeting next month. You're the first in line. I
recommend that if you don't feel comfortable passing these fees, you
say you don't support or deny it, but maybe have the chairman --
authorize the chairman to speak on DSAC and see how they (sic)
comes up and have a joint agreement on it and you have more time on
it.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. BOYD: Mike, so this $50 fee that we're talking about right
now, that's for those of us that are state certified to register our license
with Collier County. The $50 fee covers two years.
MR. OSSORIO: Exactly right.
MR. BOYD: Okay. That fee is not out of line with what I pay all
over --
MR. OSSORIO: No, I know that.
MR. BOYD: Cape Coral, City of Fort Myers, Lee County. That
fee is not out of order, and I don't have a problem with that.
The problem I would have is, you know, we've got thrown this
Page 23
16 I 1 !A 6'
August 19,2009
thing, which some ofthe rates are going up 45,50 percent. I wish I
could raise my prices right now 45,50 percent, but I can't do it. So,
you know, that's where we're in a quandary is how can we justify
raising everything 45 to 50 percent and, you know, just being thrown
that. You know --
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Boyd, and I --
MR. BOYD: -- I almost would come to a separate meeting to
address this, if we have to.
MR. OSSORIO: And I agree with you, Mr. Boyd. But the issue
is, is that in 2001 you made a resolution -- and I can pull the records --
and we raised the fees a tiny bit. And you said to -- you gave direction
to staff and you said if these fees are not enough you need to come
back. Because license is important. You know, health, safety, welfare.
There's not a day goes by that we don't issue a stop work order for a
health/safety issue.
And we're not going to get ad valorem tax. So, you know, it's --
maybe in a couple of years we can advocate it, we'll take it to the
board when the dollar does this and the yen does that, whatever it
might be. But the bottom line is, these fees -- if we raise these fees to
where we are now, we are in line with every other city, municipality.
We're probably even below the scale.
MR. WHITE: Was that part of what PMG was asked to do?
MR. OSSORIO: No.
MR. WHITE: No?
MR. OSSORIO: I don't think they took other jurisdictions. But
I'm telling you as a personal level, and Mr. Boyd can tell you -- and I
can tell Mr. Boyd is that if your fees as a sign company was 40, 50
percent less than Fort Myers, you would raise your fees.
MR. BOYD: I don't disagree.
MR. OSSORIO: Okay.
MR. BOYD: I totally support that -- you know, probably those
fees have been low for the last three to four years.
Page 24
16~1 A6 1
August 19,2009
MR. OSSORIO: Exactly right.
MR. BOYD: And one ofthe problems I have is the fact that
you're not getting any general funds when you should be, because
code enforcement does. And code enforcement's still working five
days a week. And I think we as a board should push to get you some
funding from the general fund. You deserve it as much as code
enforcement.
MR. WHITE: Meaning the statements are the same and the
ultimate benefit to the citizens are essentially the same, so that the
costs should be shared from the 111.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think I see Mr. Boyd's aspect as far as
this goes, because of the fact that we are not in the general fund. And
what we're doing, I think Mr. Lykos is considering, is that we're
allowing these increases and allowing the contractors to be paying for
items that don't pertain to licensing. If that's what I'm getting at
correctly. Which I don't agree with either.
However, at the moment we are still locked into the 113 or the
111, whichever fund we're into. And I'd like to definitely -- ifit takes a
motion or if it takes the board to sit down with someone or go before
the commissioners and try to get out of this fund and make licensing a
self-sufficient entity here, I think we can do that. I think we're more
than self-sufficient to be able to do that.
MR. WHITE: Could -- before I'm kind of able to make an
informed choice about that, I'd like to better understand what the
process steps are here. I know you've got a DSAC sub-committee
meeting next week. That's what you mentioned. You've got DSAC
when?
MR. DUNN: September.
MR. WHITE: 1st?
MR. DUNN: 2nd. It's a Wednesday.
MR. WHITE: Correct. Okay, the 2nd. And then you're not going to the board until October 13th?
Page 25
16 I ,I' A 6 1
August 19,2009
MR. DUNN: Exactly. I think that DSAC meeting has actually
been changed. The DSAC is going to be working on the Land
Development Code I believe on the 2nd. And that's a full day. So we
might have moved that further into September.
That's why we had to postpone going to the Board of County
Commissioners, because we didn't have enough time. You know, we
got this just last week.
MR. WHITE: It seems that in the past, in 2007 there was an
independent resolution from the Contractor Licensing Board relative
to their view of fee changes pertaining to contractor licensing
department.
I'd like to put you in a position where you would have that same
type of input from this board. And I heard one of my fellow board
members suggest that if we even had to come back for a special
meeting in September for that purpose, that we might be willing
considering doing that. So I'd like to know when those dates are and
also whether our -- if we had a meeting, for example, third week
September, would that still allow you enough time to get information
into the executive summaries, combine it with what you have from
DSAC and its sub-committee to make a meaningful recommendation
to the Board of County Commissioners at their meeting on the
October 13 date?
MR. DUNN: I believe if you came back the second week in
September, that would help, that would greatly help us. That would
give us enough time.
I know -- you know, the executive summary, you know, the
whole analysis has to be completed. And of course, you know, we
have to get it to the Board of County Commissioners. But we have
postponed it. I mean, we had to move it out of September because our
budget office wouldn't be able to prepare all the fee schedules and
have their analysis completed for the Board of County
Commissioners.
Page 26
161n Jl61
tugust 1~, 20b~
So if you want to come back the second week in September,
we'd be happy to have another meeting the second week of September.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think that would be something that
would be definitely in line. That way I think you satisfy more of the
people on the board as far as satisfying their questions. And we would
get the questions that answered answered (sic) relative to the changes
that are going to be made.
I mean, I understand that we need to make changes and we need
to increase the fees, because we are behind in times, no doubt. But I
just don't want to see it go rampid (sic) to where as we're paying for a
lot of other things that doesn't have anything to do with licensing.
MR. DUNN: Well, the fees that we're looking for, the increase
in fees is going to be for licensing. You know, I promised before that
we were going to increase staff, we increased staff.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right.
MR. DUNN: I promised this time if we increased the fees we're
going to increase staff, we're going to add another investigator. And
we want to do that. I mean, you know, we don't have enough staff to
cover the county.
Contractor licensing needs more folks. You know, we beefed
them up as much as we can with the funding that we receive now. So
with this increase, we'll be able to add another investigator. That's the
whole purpose. And so the money's going to be used in contractor
licensing.
MR. NEALE: And just as a reference point for the board, Mr.
Ossorio did attach to the front of this the resolution that was passed by
this board in May of 2007. And I think as he pointed out, the relevant
paragraph is the second paragraph in here where the board did discuss
the -- that the level of service should not be reduced, which I think is
what the board's saying here.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right.
MR. NEALE: But what I think Mr. Dunn and Mr. Ossorio
Page 27
1&..\1' A61
MIgusn9,2009
would like from the board, either now or at the September meeting, is
a similar kind of resolution and finding, if I'm correct.
MR. DUNN: Correct.
MR. WHITE: Certainly, it would seem if that's the case, then
what we should have had today in combination was something, a
resolution for 2009 drafted for our consideration. Because I'm thinking
at the minimum there is no other way other than a motion and
whatever from this board, and that's just an item in the executive
summary. There's nothing that is any kind ofloss that the Board of
County Commissioners are ever going to see about what our
deliberations and recommendations may have been other than a
number.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, I think if we come up with a--
correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Neale, but we can come up with a
tentative -- a motion to allow staff and the county to go forward on
this resolution as far as the fee changes goes, but it won't become law
or it won't go before the commissioners for final approval until it
comes back in September. But we have to give them some kind of
direction to proceed.
MR. NEALE: Well, what the board would have to do in my
opinion is to schedule effectively a special meeting of the board next
month, since the regularly scheduled meeting is not until October.
Schedule a special meeting next month to consider a resolution on
fees.
And then the board could meet at its pleasure next month,
consider a fee resolution, and I draft that fee resolution before that
meeting. And then the board could transmit that fee resolution to staff
and the DSAC and the BCC for their consideration, if that --
MR. OSSORIO: One of the things, Mr. Neale, I know we did
last time in 2007 is that we had a good argument in 2007 with the
proposed fees back then. There was a consensus, you gave us
direction, you wrote a resolution and the chairman signed it. There
Page 28
16 I' 1 A 6 .~
August 19,2009
was no special meeting. I don't know what a meeting next month is
going to change.
PMG did their study. On the bare minimum this is what we're
going to need to go to, you know, 40 hours minimum.
So me belaboring -- you know, having the issue come back next
month, your job as the health, safety and welfare ofthe community,
you directed me to make sure we didn't have a reduction.
We have a reduction. Our staff is working 32 hours a week.
PMG basically said, they did an analysis on this thing, no matter what
my recommendations are, this is the minimum. Are we going to get ad
valorem information this year? Probably not. Maybe in two years we
can look at the fees and we can direct staff or we can do a reduction in
unlicensed activity if we do get those kind of funds.
But it's not uncommon, the board comes to a consensus and Pat
Neale writes resolution or I do and the chairman signs it as he signs all
the orders after the board meeting.
MR. WHITE: I think the big difference for me, Mr. Chairman, is
that one of the things I was hoping to have staff do is to put down in
some kind of a table what the other jurisdictions are charging so that
we do have some documentation that supports the statements that were
made today and I think our perhaps general impressions from our own
experiences of what those fees are. So that we have something that,
you know, kind of helps support this in taking it to the Board of
County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I know myself as a pool contractor, I can
attest, just like Mr. Boyd, that if you go to Cape Coral or any other
jurisdictions, Lehigh -- I mean Lee County, I mean, their fees are
much higher to do the same types ofthings that we're doing here for a
lesser cost.
So I know that we're in a sense behind the gun. We're behind
times as far as fees goes. And we have never increased those fees to
anything that even comes up to the other jurisdictions. So I don't think
Page 29
16Ir!A6~
August 19,2009
we're out of line, I'm trying to make sure that everybody is on the
same page as far as how we do it.
MR. WHITE: That begs the question of why PMG wasn't
apparently tasked with groundtruthing these fees relative to other
jurisdictions.
MR. DUNN: Excuse me --
MR. WHITE: I've got two conflicting --
MR. DUNN: Excuse me. I sat in with PMG. Michael, his staff
worked with them on the analysis part of it on how they functioned in
their department.
PMG did an analysis based on what the other areas in Fort
Lauderdale, Broward County, Miami-Dade, they're working up in Lee
County. I mean, they're a state-wide consultant. I mean, they work on
fees, they specialize in fees. They did an analysis; they saw our fees
were way low. They knew they were going -- it was going to be -- we
were going to have to have an increase.
We were happy it just came down with the numbers that we
have now. You know, I thought it was going to be a lot higher.
But, you know, they have an analysis completed. You know,
he's worked -- I know the last couple of years he's worked in Broward
County and Fort Lauderdale and Miami-Dade and they do all ofthe
state. I mean, you know, we picked somebody that had experience in
Florida. They know what the other communities do in contractor
licensing boards. They work with contractor licensing boards. They
know the type of fees that are paid.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos, you had another question?
MR. L YKOS: So we can get on with the rest of our business, I'm
going to make a motion. And hopefully it will be appropriate and we
can move forward.
I'm going to make a motion that we endorse a fee increase today
and the amount of that fee increase will be pending a fee analysis by
DSAC with one of our members sitting in -- I'm sorry, the DSAC
Page 30
16 I ~ A 6 1
August 19,2009
sub-committee with one of our members sitting in on that fee analysis
meeting. And that our board hold a special meeting in September, and
that the board member that attends that fee analysis meeting will
report back to our board and then our board will vote to approve the
amount of the fee increase.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: With one minor change. Is it possible
that we could increase that to two board members, myself and you?
Myself as a chairman, you as a vice-chairman.
MR. L YKOS: I'll amend my motion to include the chair and the
vice chair of this board to sit on that sub-committee, DSAC
sub-committee.
MR. WHITE: Second. And one request for a favorable
amendment, that being that we would approve that fee by way of
resolution that the board would consider in September.
MR. L YKOS: Add that to my motion.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I need a second.
MR. WHITE: I seconded.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Oh, you seconded the motion, sorry.
Any discussion further?
MR. OSSORIO: One. When you say meeting in September, you
know, obviously we don't have one planned for September.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I know.
MR. OSSORIO: We'll go ahead and get it planned. I have no
problem. But this meeting is not going to be a full-blown agenda
meeting.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right, I was--
MR. OSSORIO: This meeting is a specific item to fees, so it
shouldn't take more than an hour.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, right.
MR. OSSORIO: Do you want to have a court reporter there? Do
we need one? Mr. Zachary?
MR. WHITE: I'm assuming it's audio recorded as well.
Page 31
1611 \A6~
~gusl1 ~ 2009
MR. OSSORIO: Well, if you can get the room. The problem is,
is that it's very difficult to get this room.
MR. WHITE: You can audio record it regardless.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We could do this at the county. Is it
possible --
MR. OSSORIO: Sure.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- to do this at the county rather than
here?
MR. OSSORIO: I'm just letting you know, is there a good day
you're looking -- the board members wish to have a special meeting
on? Is there any particular day?
MR. WHITE: Well, I know from my schedule, I will be taking
this beard across country the first and second weeks of September. So
I couldn't do maybe -- I don't know if we could do it any day of the
week, but not until at least the 14th.
MR. L YKOS: When's the DSAC meeting?
MR. WHITE: I think it's going to be the second--
MR. L YKOS: The sub-committee meeting.
MR. DUNN: Sub-committee is next -- the 26th.
MR. L YKOS: Of August?
MR. DUNN: Yes.
MR. L YKOS: So we need to meet immediately thereafter so that
we can endorse the exact amount of fees, pass that endorsement onto
DSAC and onto the board.
We need five members to participate in that meeting?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. L YKOS: Okay. So I think the date ofthe meeting is not
relevant to the motion.
MR. WHITE: Correct.
MR. L YKOS: Why don't we get the motion resolved and then
we can even outside of this meeting at the end of our meeting today,
we can resolve the date and the time ofthat meeting.
Page 32
16/1 '161
August 19, 2009
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: One last question, though, the court
reporter.
Mr. Neale, should we consider a court reporter for that meeting?
MR. NEALE: I'll let Mr. Zachary --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Or Mr. Zachary.
MR. NEALE: -- take that one.
MR. ZACHARY: Off the top of my head, I don't think a court
reporter is required. It would be preferred. It's a public meeting, it has
to be noticed, open to the public. I think the bare minimum would be a
recording or -- and someone to take notes. Preferably a court reporter
to be there, then you wouldn't have any question.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. I think that would probably be in
line, only because of the fact that if the fees changes it may affect a lot
of contractors, right?
MR. OSSORIO: No problem.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So there probably should be a record.
Okay, we have a motion and a second on the floor to approve, as
Mr. Lykos has motioned.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries 6 -- 7-0.
All right. Put that to sleep for a moment.
Mr. Dunn?
MR. DUNN: Yes, I wasn't clear on who the two members on the
Page 33
1611 ~A6'
August 19,2009
sub-committee were.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry?
MR. DUNN: The two members that you were appointing for the
sub-committee.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Myself and Mr. Lykos.
MR. L YKOS: Chair and vice chair.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Chair and vice chair, we'll be there.
MR. DUNN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We just need notification when and
where and we'll be there, okay?
MR. DUNN: Okay. It's going to be on the 26th and we'll send
you an invite.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Thank you.
MR. LYKOS: Thank you.
MR. DUNN: Thank you very much, board members.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're welcome.
All right, on to some new business, huh? Is there a Steven
Winters here?
Would you please come up to the podium here and be sworn in.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Winters, you are here before us
today to -- requesting to qualify a second entity; is that correct?
MR. WINTERS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. And currently you qualify or
you're going to qualify Setterquist Carpet and Tile?
MR. WINTERS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And let's see here. Do you have your
own carpet business at the moment yourself?
MR. WINTERS: No, I do tile and marble.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You do tile and marble.
MR. WINTERS: And I want to qualify them for tile and marble.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I see.
Page 34
161,1 A6 \~
August 19,2009
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just a quick question.
Mr. Steven Winters qualifies Steven Winters, LLC.
MR. WINTERS: Correct.
MR. OSSORIO: He's a tile and marble company. He wishes to
qualify Setterquist Carpet, Tile and Marble. Setterquist Tile and
Marble has a carpet license already, but they want to go have a tile
and marble license as well.
MR. JERULLE: In lieu of the Steven Winters, LLC or in
addition to?
MR. OSSORIO: Addition to. So he qualifies Steven Winters,
LLC and he wants to qualify a second company called Setterquist
Carpet and Tile, Incorporated; am I correct?
MR. WINTERS: Correct.
MR. OSSORIO: Did you pay your $50 fee?
MR. WINTERS: Yes, sir.
MR. OSSORIO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So actually Steven Winters as the license
holder is qualifying, not Steven Winters, LLC?
MR. WINTERS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, just to make sure.
MR. WHITE: Based on that, Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of
questions maybe on the application to help straighten some of the
answers out that don't seem to make sense.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I know, I didn't -- go ahead.
MR. WHITE: On number five -- do you have the application
with you, Mr. Winters?
MR. WINTERS: Yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: I think it's the third page that says -- number five
at the top, questionnaire, qualifying.
MR. WINTERS: Number five or letter?
MR. WHITE: It starts at the top of the page it says five. At the
bottom right-hand comer it's number four.
Page 35
16 I~ 1 A 6 '1
August 19~009
MR. WINTERS: Oh, okay.
MR. WHITE: Okay. Under letter B you answered no. So I'm a
little confused because your answer in A says you work for the
proposed entity. I think you mean you work for the entity that's going
to be qualified.
MR. WINTERS: They sell tile and carpet, and right now they --
I contract the work from the customer through them. We want them to
be able to contract the work; be licensed so that they can contract the
tile work from the customer.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Under your license.
MR. WINTERS: Under my license.
MR. OSSORIO: There was no -- Setterquist never had a tile and
marble qualifier, so the answer is no.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I gotcha.
MR. WHITE: Okay.
MR. WINTERS: It was a little confusing for me too when I was
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any other questions, Mr. White?
MR. WHITE: Yes.
On the next page under letter N as in Nancy, you're listed as the
owner?
MR. WINTERS: Correct.
MR. WHITE: I think if it's an LLC--
MR. WINTERS: A member.
MR. WHITE: Okay. Because that then matches up with what
you said on Page 7.
MR. WINTERS: I apologize for that.
MR. WHITE: Okay. And if I direct your attention to Page 8, the
affidavit.
MR. WINTERS: Okay.
MR. WHITE: What firm is he supposed to be signing for here?
Is it Setterquist or --
Page 36
AU~U~ 119,!0~6 1
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's who he is wanting to qualify the
second entity. He's trying to qualify Setterquist Carpet and Tile.
MR. WHITE: If that's the case, I don't believe he's an officer of
that firm.
MR. OSSORIO: No, this is an affidavit for the application that's
true and correct, this affidavit.
MR. WHITE: Okay. Well, then ifthe affidavit was
acknowledged by -- appears to be acknowledged by the Notary. I
think it should have been Mr. Winters name instead of the Notary's
name that went in there. I may be mistaken about that.
MR. OSSORIO: I think you're correct.
MR. WHITE: So I don't know if the affidavit is valid or not, but
I'll leave that to staff to rectify.
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, under the ordinance, under the
application it doesn't say it has to be notarized, it just says an affidavit.
That's how we actually get the affidavit, by getting it notarized. We
can fix that before he goes forward.
MR. WINTERS: My name should have been here?
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah. We can fix number eight.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have some questions then. Mr.--
MR. WHITE: Just one more, in may, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry, go ahead.
MR. WHITE: On Page 10, this resolution, there are no
witnesses. And there's no designation of Mr. Winters' title. I'm
assuming he'd be signing this as part ofthe -- I don't know why he's
signing this. And quite honestly, because unless he's an officer of
Setterquist somehow, which none of the other records support him
being --
MR. WINTERS: No.
MR. WHITE: -- then I don't know why he'd be signing it.
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, Mr. Winters, you shouldn't have signed
on that bottom. But Setterquist signed above you?
Page 37
Augu1 ?9, '20!9 A 6 1
MR. WINTERS: Yeah.
MR. OSSORIO: Okay. So you just signed underneath it?
MR. WINTERS: Yeah.
MR. OSSORIO: Okay.
MR. WHITE: And I don't know which of the D. Setterquists that
is. There appear to be a few of them.
MR. WINTERS: Don Setterquist. And he's here today.
MR. WHITE: It doesn't have his title on there, and there's no
witnesses, Mr. Ossorio.
I'm assuming we can correct those matters as well.
MR. OSSORIO: No problem.
MR. WHITE: I think that's it for now, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I thank you, Mr. White.
I have some questions for you.
First of all, Mr. Neale, considering that Steven Winters is going
to be qualifying this entity and not Steven Winters, LLC, we are
looking at a credit report here that only reflects around Mr. Steven
Winters; is that correct?
MR. NEALE: It depends on how long he's been in business.
MR. WINTERS: Since November. Last November.
MR. NEALE: Okay, then you would be looking at his credit
report.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: His personal.
MR. NEALE: Right.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. Mr. Winters, in the packet I
have an In Balance credit report here.
MR. WINTERS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: In that package it shows that there are
several things derogatory on you.
MR. WINTERS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You want to elicitate (sic) and elaborate
what's going on here, especially with the child support?
Page 38
16/il A6
August 19,2009
MR. WINTERS: My child support is taken care of. It was paid
off with my tax return. They're still holding the money so it's still on
the credit that it's bad. But I was $2,200 behind, and they took that
money and they're holding it. They're holding it for 170 days.
But I do pay an extra $50 every week for my child support for
my arrears. So in the time that they're holding that money, I'm still
paying my back child support. Is that clear, or no?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: From the records that I have, it shows
that it goes from -- you've been paying child support since '03; is that
correct?
MR. WINTERS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And as of'06 you were behind $2,769.
MR. WINTERS: Right.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And then as of now in '09 you're still
behind $2,422.
MR. WINTERS: There was a -- I have a daughter -- I have two
daughters. And when my second daughter was born, my wife and I
weren't together. And she had a D.N.A. testing later, so all the medical
expenses came back. You understand what I'm saying? So after '06
they added more when they found out the paternity from the paternity
test that the daughter was mine.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have another concern. As I look
through your packet, I'm looking for your economy checking through
your LLC corporation, and I'm seeing a lot of money transfer through
but I'm not seeing a very large ending balance when the months are
passed.
MR. WINTERS: Right.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is there a reason for this? I mean, I'm
seeing some pretty substantial amounts of money going through but
you're ending up with --
MR. WINTERS: I'm just getting started.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- $30 or --
Page 39
1611A6~
August 19,2009
MR. WINTERS: Yeah, I'm just getting started and trying to
catch up on other bills and stuff like that from being behind from no
work during the winter months. But things are getting better now.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: This is my concern. Because of the fact
that maybe not financially you may not be able to support another
business, especially a Setterquist, which is as large as they are. That's
my concern.
I mean, any other comments from the board?
MR. L YKOS: I have some questions, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead, Mr. Lykos.
MR. L YKOS: Back on Page 4, question number five, which Mr.
White referred to earlier. Letter A, it says that there are some jobs that
they need to be qualified for. I think we've cleared up that they're
qualified now to do carpet only and you'll be qualifying them for tile
and marble; is that correct?
MR. WINTERS: Right, correct.
MR. L YKOS: Okay. And then the second issue, which would be
under Item B, what about workers' compo and liability insurance for
the added scope of work? There's no workers' compo paperwork in
here. Does this company --
MR. WINTERS: I'm workers' compo exempt.
MR. L YKOS: Okay, you are. So you're the only person --
MR. WINTERS: No, I --
MR. L YKOS: -- that's going to be doing work?
MR. WINTERS: -- have two others that are workman's compo
exempt. And we're the only three that work.
MR. L YKOS: Are those other two officers of your corporation?
MR. WINTERS: They're members, yes.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Members or officers of the corporation?
MR. WINTERS: Members, as an LLC.
MR. L YKOS: Right as an LLC as members.
Michael, would this -- would Mr. Winters qualifying Setterquist
Page 40
16 I' 1 'A 6 '
August 19, 20tJ9
allowed Setterquist to hire people outside of Mr. Winters' company to
do tile and marble? Wouldn't that allow Setterquist to do that?
MR. OSSORIO: Yes. Setterquist would be -- he's qualifying a
qualified business. Once he gets a -- once a licensee qualifies a
qualified business, that qualified business will be doing tile and
marble and carpet, and they might have four or five employees that
work for Setterquist.
The bottom line is is that tax will be taken out, workers' compo
will be taken out, and Mr. Winters would be the qualifying agent.
MR. L YKOS: We need to make sure that Setterquist has
workers compo and liability insurance --
MR. OSSORIO: Of course.
MR. L YKOS: -- for the added scope of work. Do we have that
verification?
MR. WINTERS: I do all the work for Setterquist, the tile and
marble.
MR. L YKOS: Well, as of -- if we approve this you do.
MR. WINTERS: Right. Right.
MR. L YKOS: But if one day you get in a dispute with
Setterquist and you don't work there anymore, they'll still be allowed
to do that, unless you come back and say that you don't qualify them
anymore.
MR. WINTERS: I understand.
MR. L YKOS: Or they could get busier and say hey, we're going
to add on another crew, and nobody saw the fact that there isn't
workers' compo coverage for those other people or that the liability
insurance doesn't cover that additional scope of work.
So I want verification that Setterquist will have workers' compo
and liability insurance, because you'll be allowing them to do that
work without you.
MR. OSSORIO: Typically when he'll come in, we'll have a
checklist, Setterquist will have to provide us with a description.
Page 41
161,~' 'A6 ~
August 19,2009
Have you ever seen a certificate of insurance? On the bottom it
says what he can do, carpet, tile, whatever that widget is. We'll make
sure it says tile.
It's really up to the -- I agree with you that, you know, we're
dealing with four or 5,000 contractors. In stopped and examined
every single certificate on my desk, every single scope of work and
get a -- I think it's called a document --
MR. JACKSON: Declaration page.
MR. OSSORIO: Declaration page, thank you.
We're looking into that. As a matter of fact, that's one of the
things I just touched on earlier with this fee increase. With that extra
help, that individual will be doing the declaration page.
The second page, it says description in the class code. So if you
are a carpentry contractor doing carpentry work and you tell the
insurance company you're a clerical, we can see that and you'll be
penalized for it. Right now we don't have that, obviously. We're
looking for the future, but we'll see.
MR. L YKOS: I understand.
MR. OSSORIO: Okay.
MR. L YKOS: Typically when we get these packages, we get
documentation of the workers' comp., and we don't have that in this
package. At least when I went through this package I didn't see it,
which is why I made a note.
So we don't have workers' compo documentation for Setterquist.
That's why I had the question of --
MR. OSSORIO: No, but you need to take the workers' compo
exemption, which I think is in the packet, or we get the policy. It's
either/or. Obviously if you can have employees, we want to know
about it.
But it's not uncommon that a general contractor, a building tile
company comes in with this exemption and we have that on file and
he has four or five employees and the county doesn't know about it.
Page 42
l~gJst+9, 2~0~ 1
MR. L YKOS: I understand.
MR. OSSORIO: So we go out in the field and we do that
legwork.
MR. L YKOS: But I don't want you to have to do that after the
fact. Let's get this done up front.
MR. OSSORIO: Yes.
MR. L YKOS: I mean, if we decide to approve this, I would
make a caveat that Setterquist provides the workers' compo
documentation so that we know you don't have to go find out later that
they have people on the job that didn't have workers' compo and then
we're up here for a citation for not having workers' compo
MR. OSSORIO: Is Mr. Setterquist here?
MR. WINTERS: Yes, sir.
(Mr. Setterquist was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're Mr. Setterquist, the owner of
Setterquist Carpet and Tile -- Carpet, sorry. Setterquist Carpet,
correct?
MR. SETTERQUIST: Right, yes.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Do you now carry a workman's compo
policy --
MR. SETTERQUIST: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- for your carpet installations?
MR. SETTERQUIST: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You do.
Would you have a problem providing a copy of that to the board
MR. SETTERQUIST: No.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- should we grant this gentleman his
second entity to qualify your company?
MR. SETTERQUIST: Not at all. We can do that.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay that's the question.
You can be seated.
Page 43
16 I ~ ~A 6 ·
August 19,2009
MR. SETTERQUIST: Thank you.
MR. L YKOS: A few other questions, Mr. Winters. Actually, you
know what, Mr. Setterquist, I'm sorry, you might as well stay up here,
since you've been sworn in, because I have some questions with
regard to -- let me get that page now, since Mr. Setterquist is up here.
In the -- I use pink so I can find my notes. Now I've just got to find the
one with -- the page with the pink on it.
Here it is. Page 10, which is the resolution authorization. Under
the name ofthe business, there's -- the business has been called a
couple different names. At the beginning of the application it's called
Setterquist Carpet and Tile. The first two times it's listed as Setterquist
Carpet and Tile, the third time it's listed as Setterquist, Inc., and the
fourth time it's listed as Setterquist, Inc. And then at the bottom ofthe
page again it's Setterquist, Inc.
I wasn't sure if there was two separate entities, if this was just a
matter of trying to save your hand from having to write more words.
Is there two separate businesses here?
MR. SETTERQUIST: No, one business. Setterquist, Inc., d/b/a
Setterquist Carpet and Tile.
MR. WHITE: Somebody ought to --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Let me ask you a question, Michael.
Didn't you just tell us earlier that Setterquist is a carpet company
only?
MR. OSSORIO: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, then how can it be called
Setterquist Carpet and Tile.
MR. OSSORIO: Ask Mr. Setterquist.
MR. SETTERQUIST: Setterquist Carpet and Tile has been
doing business since 1976. And back in 1976 all we needed is a
license and -- for the one person responsible. It happens to be my son,
who's a director ofthe company.
And until last year that was fine. We could put in wood, carpet,
Page 44
1 6 I' 1 11 6 ~
August 19, 100tJ
window treatments, tile, vinyl, anything we wanted to put in. But now
we have to have a separate license for tile. And we thought we were
all covered, but that wasn't good enough.
MR. OSSORIO: You sell tile, too, am I correct?
MR. SCHUCK: Oh, yeah, we have a --
MR. OSSORIO: So you have a retail sale office too.
MR. SETTERQUIST: Yeah. Yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: And I think I understood Mr. Winters to say that
all the tile jobs since the licensing change took place have been done
through his LLC?
MR. SETTERQUIST: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: As a subcontractor then. I understand.
MR. WINTERS: That's right.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. What's the pleasure of the board?
Anymore questions or discussion?
MR. WHITE: You may not have heard me, but RBC Bank
thinks the name of your business is Setterquist Carpet and Tile, Inc. So
MR. SETTERQUIST: We -- at one time we were known as
Setterquist Carpet, and then d/b/a The Carpet Shop. And then we also
had a furniture store that was known as The Happy Sleeper and we
were on file as that at one time. But this has been, you know, we've
been here 34 years, so we've made some changes over the years.
Maybe not all of them got posted properly.
MR. WHITE: Well, it seems to be at odds with what the
corporate entity that was created says as to the name of the business.
MR. JERULLE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure, Terry.
MR. JERULLE: Mr. Ossorio, do you have a recommendation?
MR. OSSORIO: I recommend you approve it with the changes
of Pages 7 and 8.
MR. JERULLE: Thank you.
Page 45
6 I "I A 6 '.
AulJst 19J009
MR. OSSORIO: And get insurance.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'll make a motion that we approve it.
MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: With one exception -- I'm sorry -- to
make sure that that Workmen's Compo policy comes in to staff.
And I would like to approve the second entity; however, I think I
would put it on a 90-day probationary period. I would like to see
something happen with this child support situation on your credit.
After 90 days you'll either come back to us and show us some
kind of proof that this child support is taken care of --
MR. WINTERS: No problem.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- or at least it's reduced or you're taking
care of it.
MR. WINTERS: It will be paid off, because one of my
daughters has come to live with me as of Friday and my child support
stops.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Well, that's all I'm asking for.
MR. WINTERS: No problem. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're welcome.
That's a motion. I need an amendment to the motion, probably --
a second?
MR. BOYD: You amended your motion?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I amended the motion.
MR. BOYD: I'll second it, Boyd.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: A motion and a second. All in favor,
signify by saying aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
Page 46
Al~t 19\009A 6
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. OSSORIO: Break.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Need a small break? Okay. We'll take a
lO-minute recess here. Make it for 10:35. We'll adjourn till then.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'd call the meeting back to order for the
August 19th Collier County Contractor Licensing Board, and we'll
pick up where we left off earlier.
The next item on the agenda, is a Mr. Donald A. Darling, Jr.
present? Please, come up and be sworn in.
(Mr. Darling and Mr. Ganguli were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Darling, you are before us today
because you are contesting Citation No. 4881 --
MR. GANGULI: No, sir, Mr. Joslin, that's an error.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- for unlicensed landscape?
MR. GANGULI: 4882.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have 4881 in front of me.
Thank you, Mr. Ganguli.
MR. WHITE: That answers my first question about having
elected the option to pay it.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, this citation -- Mr. Ganguli,
were you sworn in already?
MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Mr. Ganguli, you're the one that
investigated the situation. Would you like to elaborate on what you
saw.
MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir.
Page 47
16 I 1 'A 6 ·
August 19,2009
First of all, I'd like to address the two things: One, that in Mr.
Darling's administrative complaint he makes mention of Citation
4882, which is the one you have in your packet that I just handed to
you. And the one he included was 4881, which he's not contesting. So
I just wanted to be clear on what I just did.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. So if I'm understanding this
correctly, Citation No. 4881 was an unlicensed landscape contractor
citation that --
MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- that he did not contest.
MR. GANGULI: That's not being contested. 4882 for
advertising as such is being contested.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. But the first one was paid
already?
MR. DARLING: Yes. Yes, it was.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It was paid?
MR. DARLING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, continue.
MR. GANGULI: The other thing I also wanted to do is speak to
Mr. Darling and his administrative hearing request. He may have felt
that I treated him unfairly, and if that's the case, I do apologize to you,
sir. I'm always confident substantiating my reasoning in front of these
gentlemen, and you'll have the same opportunity.
MR. DARLING: Absolutely. I didn't feel that you necessarily
treated me unfairly, Ijust thought maybe there was -- the wording of
my company was --
MR. GANGULI: Understood.
MR. DARLING: -- misunderstood or taken in the wrong
context.
MR. GANGULI: Understood.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, the way I see it here, I'mjust
going to give an overview of what I see. First citation was for a
Page 48
161' 1 A 6 ~
. August 19,2009
landscaping service that you've done, or landscaping that you did that
you were unlicensed to do; is that correct?
MR. DARLING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. And then clearly on the--
apparently on the side of the truck you have a sign that's listed as
Darling Landscape Services, Inc.?
MR. DARLING: Yes, correct.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. So Mr. Ganguli gave you a
citation for advertising landscaping.
MR. DARLING: Yes. Landscape installation, yes.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Not landscape installation but
landscaping as a word.
MR. DARLING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is that what your sign says?
MR. DARLING: Yeah, my sign says Darling Landscape
Services, which is a noun. And the services that we provide, such as
cutting the lawn, fertilization, mulching, that type of thing, I would
think that that was included under landscape maintenance.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, but that's not what your sign says.
Your sign --
MR. DARLING: Landscape services--
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- says landscape services.
MR. DARLING: Well, I would say that maintenance or services
are the same thing. We're providing a service for a landscape. Maybe
I'm confusing that, but that's the intent of it.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would you say that landscape as a
service, is that something that you do for someone that you get paid
for?
MR. DARLING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay.
MR. DARLING: As a service for them. You know, cutting the
grass and so on, so forth, as I've just mentioned.
Page 49
e.. 4 'A6 ~
Augul HI, 6049
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right.
The definition of service -- do you know what that is?
MR. DARLING: To provide a -- I don't know, provide service
for a fee.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: According to Webster's, it says it's to
make or keep ready for use.
Obviously your service part of your signage is what got you in
trouble. Landscape is a noun, no doubt, until you change it and put it
into a different context. And what you did was you said you do
landscape services --
MR. DARLING: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- which changes that now over to a
verb, telling you that you are advertising to do landscape services,
anything to do with landscaping, correct?
MR. DARLING: Ifthat's your interpretation then I guess maybe
mme IS --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It's not mine, it's Webster's.
MR. DARLING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I go by the dictionary.
MR. DARLING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It's easy that way.
MR. DARLING: Sure, sure. I didn't -- you know, I was just
trying to -- I'm not trying to be difficult here, I was just trying to
understand what -- you know, what is right and what is wrong, that's
all.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Ganguli, what did you actually see
at this --
MR. GANGULI: Mr. Joslin, on June 4th, 2009, I observed a
crew from Darling Landscape Services, Incorporated planting
shrubbery at the residence located at 5640 Hammock Isles in the
Vineyards Country Club.
Although advertising on the equipment indicated landscape
Page 50
1-
AUguJ @, foJ; A 6 1
services, my investigation revealed a Collier County business tax
receipt for lawn maintenance only.
I called Mr. Darling to advice him ofthe violations I observed
and issued two citations: Number 4881 for unlicensed contracting, and
No. 4882 for unlicensed advertising, which was signed by his crew
leader on the job site.
Citation 4882 for unlicensed advertising was issued based
entirely on the evidence you have in photographs in front of you.
That was my interpretation.
MR. OSSORlO: Mr. Chairman, we try to be consistent in
licensing. If a gentleman is doing electrical work and outside his van it
says electrical services, well, he gets a ticket because he's -- the
impression of those homeowners and impression of the public is
saying that he does electrical work. So there's really no difference
between landscape services and electrical services. We try to be
consistent, so that's what we do.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos?
MR. L YKOS: I make a motion that we uphold the citation.
MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion and a second to uphold
the Citation No. 4882.
All those in favor -- any discussion first?
MR. WHITE: Yes. Just if I could, can you tell me what the
scope of work for the license is that Mr. Darling has?
MR. OSSORlO: Mr. Darling has a business tax receipt for lawn
maintenance, cutting grass and those kind of items.
MR. WHITE: That's the scope of service.
MR. OSSORlO: That's his scope of service.
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
MR. DARLING: I did -- I have applied for my landscape
license, after I talked to Mr. Ossorio. And I have applied for that. I
have passed the test f~r the contractor's license, and I've picked up the
Page 51
16111A6~
Augusti9,200<1"
packet, and I'm proceeding with all of that. So I'm trying to do the
right thing here.
I do have Workmen's Comp., I do have a limited spray license,
which very few people in the county actually have, to spray. It's called
a roundup license, basically. So I do have liability insurance.
I'm trying to do the right things. I'm just really trying to get an
explanation of why, you know, I was cited for this. And certainly what
you're saying, you know, makes sense. So I'm just --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We appreciate your comment and that,
but there's a motion on the floor.
All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries.
You have to pay the fine, Mr. Darling. And the reason is because
what you're doing is you're trying to advertise yourself as a landscape
service company. And that's what happened. If you said the landscape
-- I do landscapes, well, you could be looking at another train looking
at a landscape and saying there's a landscape. That's a noun. That's
what you're thinking.
MR. DARLING: Yeah, I understand.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: But now that you've got it together and
you've got your license under way, then I don't think you'll have any
more problems with --
MR. DARLING: I really don't. I was just trying to understand,
Page 52
1 e.. I t, A 6 ~
Augu~ '1:'9, 20M
you know, the difference there, landscape services or landscape
installation or landscape contracting. I could see if I had landscape
contracting or landscape installation written as my --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, that service is the one that got you,
okay?
MR. DARLING: I understand what you're saying. I just -- I also
don't want to change the name of my company, obviously.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, you won't have to. If you get the
license you won't have to.
MR. DARLING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay?
MR. DARLING: Thank you.
MR. L YKOS: Good luck.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Next on the agenda is a Donald L. Hans.
Are you present?
MR. HANS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Please come to the podium also and be
.
sworn m.
(Mr. Jackson and Mr. Hans were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Hans, you're before us today
because you are contesting Citation No. 4838, issued to you by Ian
Jackson.
Mr. Jackson, have you been sworn in?
MR. JACKSON: I was.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would you like to elaborate a little bit on
what you found Mr. Hans to be doing improperly.
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
On June 4th I received a call from a plumbing inspector for
Marco Island, Gary Konicek, I believe his name is, regarding
unknown work that was going on at a condo.
I went to the condo, met Mr. Hans, who explained that he was a
tenant there. And I asked him to come in -- if I could come in to see
Page 53
Augul ~, ~J9 A 6 ~
what kind of work was going on.
He allowed me to enter, where I observed a recently painted
condo and the refurbishing of two bathrooms, including removal of
toilets, removal of cabinetry, both of which in Marco Island requires a
building permit.
There was a stop work order posted. And in my talking with Mr.
Hans, it was determined that he was responsible for the removal of the
cabinetry and the toilets to paint the condo.
And I then asked Mr. Hans how he was being compensated for
the painting and he said there was a reduction in his rent. Therefore,
based on what Mr. Hans told me I considered that compensation and I
cited Mr. Hans for unlicensed painting there and then, and also posted
a stop work order for the unpermitted bathroom remodeling, since
there has been a building permit issued for that remodel.
But the issue was painting that day and being compensated by a
reduction in rent.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Was anybody working on the bathroom
when you were there?
MR. JACKSON: There was a licensed plumber doing some
work there. He and Mr. Hans both explained that he was doing some
light plumbing, some installation of fixtures, if I'm not mistaken.
With the stop work order that plumber left, talked with the
homeowner, explained to the homeowner what needed to be done,
getting a general contractor to get the building permit for the
bathrooms.
The bathrooms isn't the issue of why we're here today.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right.
MR. JACKSON: The compensation for painting is.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right.
Mr. Hans, would you like to --
MR. OSSORIO: Before we go further, Mr. Jackson, did you
look at a lease agreement?
Page 54
161 W, A6.
August 19, 1-009
MR. JACKSON: Mr. Hans did show me a lease agreement
between himself and the owner, and included in that were construction
type items, painting, the refurbishing of the bathrooms.
In the condo I wasn't able to get a copy of anything, but based on
his testimony in the condo, based on what he showed me in that lease
agreement that contained construction items, that's why I cited Mr.
Hans.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And Mr. Hans testified to you, told you
that this is how he was being compensated for --
MR. JACKSON: When I asked him how he was being paid, he
said there was a reduction in rent.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Hans?
MR. HANS: Well, the last statement Mr. Jackson made is
incorrect, I didn't say that at all.
I did let him in. He said he was an inspector. He came in and
looked around. And he was indicating about the painting and I said
yes, I did all the painting myself. I'm moving in. In order to move in, I
wanted to make sure the condo was in proper condition before I did
that.
His words were -- he asked in was compensated for this work
and I said no, I am not compensated for this work. I did it free because
I'm moving in and I want it to look nice. And he says, people don't
paint for free. That's his exact words. And I said well, I am to take
care of the place. I know the lady and I'm fixing it up.
He said, well, you're not compensated.
I said no.
He said, well, what about all this paint and everything that's
going on?
I said, all the materials that I am paying for to paint the place is
being reducted (sic) from my rent. So if I bought paint, if I bought
rollers, in bought things, that was coming offthe rent, not
compensating for the labor work to paint the place.
Page 55
1 ~4u1! 19A2~9 ~
And he said well, that's -- you're being compensated then.
And I said no, I'm not, just for the materials that's in there.
So we had further conversation, and I tried to explain again that
I'm not being compensated. I showed him the contract, as Michael had
mentioned. I also showed him in the contract that addendum that said
specifically that the work was being done at no cost to the owner. I
showed him that. And I also asked Mr. Jackson if he'd like to call the
owner, she'll explain to him that I am doing it for free. I'm fixing the
place up to move in. So I was not being compensated, I have not been
compensated.
I have an affidavit from the owner, if you'd like to see it,
Chairman. I brought one, because I didn't know who all would be
here, indicating that I was not compensated at all for doing the work in
the condo.
So, you know, I talked to a couple of GC's, you know, about the
statute, and he said the intent of this statute is to make sure that people
don't paint for a living and be compensated for it.
All I was doing was painting where I was living, just like if I
was a homeowner. That's all I was doing.
And I did remove, as Mr. Jackson said, a couple of vanities,
because I wanted to paint behind them before they put the new
vanities in. But that's all I was doing.
And I was completely done when he came. There was no more
painting to be done after that point.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any questions ofthe board?
(No response.)
MR. HANS: Any other questions of me, I'd be glad to answer
them.
MR. WHITE: I'd like to take a look at the affidavit, if --
MR. HANS: Sure, sure.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We have to have a motion that this
personal written affidavit of facts from Rachel Klein, owner of condo
Page 56
1611 A6
August 19,2009
unit 403, Princes Del Mar, Marco Island, Florida, be submitted into
evidence.
MR. WHITE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Second?
MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second.
All in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries.
Mr. Hans, do you live in this apartment?
MR. HANS: Yes, sir, I do.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Do you live in the apartment that you
were painting?
MR. HANS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Were you living there at the time you
were painting, or --
MR. HANS: No.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- was this something that you were just
potentially going to move into?
MR. HANS: I was going to move into, yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: Did you have a signed lease at that time?
MR. HANS: Pardon me, sir?
MR. WHITE: Did you have a signed lease?
MR. HANS: I did. We signed the lease May 1st. I was supposed
Page 57
16 I' 1 A 6 ~
August 19,200'9
to move in June 1st, but it wasn't completed. I didn't move in till about
the 15th of June.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: By your own testimony, though, you
said that for the materials that you purchased for, the rollers, the paint,
the brushes and all the tape and everything it takes to do that painting
work, that was going to be deducted from your rent --
MR. HANS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- to pay you back that money, correct?
MR. HANS: That's correct. For the materials, not for the labor
itself.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Normally a contractor, when he
contracts he normally contracts labor and material. He doesn't contract
just the labor. Most of the time. Some contractors do, but very seldom
do I see too many labor only contracts come out. Generally it's a
contractor contracts his labor and material.
In which case then you would definitely have become a
contractor, because you included materials in that payback to you.
Even though it was a reduction for your rent it still becomes a
contractor --
MR. HANS: Well, she's an 87 year old lady and she wasn't
going to go out and purchase the stuff. She just asked in would get it
first and she would just deduct it from the rent.
I mean, you know, I'm not a contractor, I'm a tenant living there.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It would have been --
MR. HANS: I'm a banker.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- easier in some cases if she'd have
given you a $50 bill and said here, go buy it and give me the change.
MR. OSSORlO: Mr. Hans, you have a copy of the lease
agreement?
MR. HANS: I do.
MR. WHITE: I've got his testimony as to when he said he
entered into it, a sworn statement from this gentleman about what it
Page 58
16 If 1 ~ 6 ~
August 19,2009
purports to say. I don't feel I need to see it, but other members may
feel differently.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Jerulle, you had a question?
MR. JERULLE: No. Mr. Ossorio just asked the question.
I'd like to see the lease if I could, please. Or at least the page that
MR. HANS: There's no -- the addendum to this--
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Hans, you need to be on the
mic. Thank you.
MR. HANS: The part that I showed Mr. Jackson, the addendum,
isn't with the original contract that I have here. This states that at no
cost to the owner. It does -- just said there's an addendum to it. I don't
have that with me.
MR. JERULLE: Why is that?
MR. HANS: Why is what, sir?
MR. JERULLE: Why is it that you have --
MR. HANS: Well, that was the only thing I thought I had to
bring. I just happened to have this with me. Just to verify signature or
that I was a tenant is the only reason I brought it. I don't have the
whole thing. She has the original contract.
MR. JERULLE: So we have -- you do not have the page that
Mr. Jackson was referring to?
MR. HANS: No, I don't.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: One other thing. On this letter -- this is
kind of unique, but on this written affidavit of facts we have a Rachel
Klein who signed it and the same Donald Hans notarized it.
MR. HANS: As a Notary I'm just verifying she's the individual,
not that the facts are true and correct. I can't verify that as a Notary.
All I'm doing is verifying that her signature is correct and she is
Rachel Klein.
And I have her contract, if you want to look at that. It's the same
signature.
Page 59
Augul @, ~~' A 6 '~
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: What's the pleasure of the board?
MR. L YKOS: Let me just throw this out, because I think
everybody -- I kind of sense everybody is in the same place I am.
I don't think that we want to give a citation to a guy who's
moving into an apartment and wants to paint it before he moves in. I
think in my history I've probably done stuff like that where I was
renting somewhere and maybe did the yard work or painted before I
moved in because I wanted it to be nice and clean when I moved in.
That being said, this whole thing with the bathrooms being
remodeled -- and even though that's not the issue at hand, I just get a
sense that there was a lot more going on.
And even though, Mr. Hans, it appears that you were only
involved with the paint, I just start to question the bathrooms and
cabinets, and there was a licensed plumber on site, there's no permit.
So now who was running the project? And it just -- if it was just
the paint and nothing else was going on, it's kind of a black-and-white
for me. But with all your stuff going on, I just start to feel different
about it.
MR. HANS: Well, in could make a comment on the plumber,
he was there for an estimate. He came in for an estimate. And when he
came in, he saw that the stuffwas leaking, the shutoff valves. And
that's what I was getting an estimate on, the shutoff valves. They were
leaking real bad. And even though he had to turn the water off, they
were still leaking.
And he said, well, while I'm here, should I just fix this? I said,
well, just fix that one, if you will, because it's leaking real bad. That
way there's no problems downstairs. And then Mr. Jackson came
when he was there.
But he was there just for the estimate, and we explained that to
Mr. Jackson when he was there.
MR. L YKOS: I understand. But toilets were removed, cabinets
were removed. I don't know many painters that remove toilets and
Page 60
AugUst\ ~ 2bol 'A 6 .,
cabinets to paint.
Now, you made a comment earlier that you wanted to paint
before new cabinets went in.
MR. HANS: Yes, sir.
MR. L YKOS: Well, now again we're talking about remodeling
bathrooms. If this was just about paint, to me, it's a no brainer. But
we're talking about pulling toilets and cabinets and countertops and
plumbing fixtures, and it just takes on a whole different feel than just
some guy who's painting a condo before he moves in.
MR. HANS : Well, I think my citation is for unlicensed painting.
MR. L YKOS: I understand. And that was--
MR. HANS: I was doing nothing else there.
MR. L YKOS: That was made clear to us at the beginning. That
issue was separate. I'm just saying how I feel--
MR. HANS: Yes, sir, that's fine.
MR. L YKOS: -- okay? I feel like if it was just paint, it's
black-and-white, probably shouldn't be a citation. But with everything
else going on, I don't think it's that clear anymore, and that's why I'm
conflicted.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Understand--
MR. NEALE: Except that the board really just has to look at
what the charge was, not extraneous circumstances. He's here for
unlicensed painting.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right.
MR. L YKOS: Okay.
MR. JERULLE: I think we had a case several months ago very
similar to this, and I think we upheld the citation, so I'm going to make
a motion to uphold the citation.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: A motion. I need a second.
MR. L YKOS: Second, Lykos.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: A motion and a second to uphold
Citation No. 4838.
Page 61
August t~JoJ A 6 .,
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed?
MR. WHITE: Opposed.
MR. BOYD: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Two.
Motion carries 5-2.
MR. HANS: Could I make --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You'll have to pay the fine.
MR. HANS: -- a comment?
I understand. Could I make two comments?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure.
MR. HANS: One, you need to be aware, when the inspector
came out, he tried to twist my words around, just to get the citation,
number one.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, let's not go any farther then.
MR. HANS: The other was is I think it's ridiculous. I know you
need money, but to charge somebody that's painting their condo is
ridiculous.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Hans.
MR. HANS: And I'll make a note to the county about this, too.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, sir, you can do what you like.
MR. HANS: I will.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Next one on the agenda for today is
Adam Sandifer.
Would you please come to the podium and be sworn in, please.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Sandifer, you are before us today
Page 62
1611 A6~
August 19, ifi09
regarding -- you're applying for a license to call it Elective (sic)
Elements, LLC.
MR. SANDIFER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And you are before us today because of
a credit problem?
MR. SANDIFER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: What's the actual-- what is Elective
LLC going to do?
MR. SANDIFER: It's Eclectiv Elements, and we're going to do
cabinet installations, manufacturing, millwork such as that.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It's called Collective (sic)?
MR. SANDIFER: Eclectiv.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Eclectiv.
MR. SANDIFER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right.
Is the spelling on this correct the way it's spelled?
MR. SANDIFER: E-C-L-E-C-T-I-V.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay.
MR. OSSORlO: Mr. Chairman, just for clarity and maybe for
speeding this --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. OSSORIO: -- up, his business is less than one year old, so
we went on his personal credit. There's some medical issues in there
that we didn't take into account, but there are some issues in there,
minus the medical, that unfortunately that shows to his not paying his
bills. So his license was referred to the Contractor Licensing Board on
6/2/09.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. I'm seeing two pages worth of
collection items.
MR. SANDIFER: Yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: May I inquire, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure.
Page 63
16 r1"A 6 ~
August 19, 1009
MR. WHITE: Mr. Sandifer, with regards to the item pertaining
to AFNI Incorporated, what's the status of that? It's $196. I guess the
original creditor was Embarq.
MR. SANDIFER: Paid for.
MR. WHITE: You've since paid them in full?
MR. SANDIFER: Yes, sir.
There's a -- I don't want to interrupt, but there's a lot of stuff
that's on there. I lost my job the end oflast year. And through that
time I was without work for about five months. And a lot of the
smaller stuff that you see on there were things that I couldn't pay for
and it went into collections.
And since that time I've been paying a lot of that stuff back. I
plan on paying all of it back. It's just that at the time it was pay my
rent to where I was living and eat and feed my family or pay that. And
unfortunately I had to make a decision, a choice.
MR. WHITE: The dollar amounts for the medical payments
really don't seem that large. I mean, the largest of them is 255, 178,62
bucks, 25 bucks.
Are any of those paid?
MR. SANDIFER: I'm working on paying those off at this time
too, sir.
MR. WHITE: So none of them have been paid?
MR. SANDIFER: Some of them have been paid for, yes. Not all,
but some have, yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: You wouldn't know which of them? Because it's
kind of hard to tell.
MR. SANDIFER: At this time, no, sir, I couldn't tell you exactly
which ones I've paid for.
MR. WHITE: You don't have any canceled checks for any of
these?
MR. SANDIFER: No, sir, at this time I do not.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: There's also one that was -- kind of
Page 64
I 6'1 1 A 6 "~
August 19, 2009 .
bothers me a little bit, from Mazda America, with a charge-off.
Apparently there was a repossession?
MR. SANDIFER: I guess so. That's what they're calling it, yes,
SIr.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Did they take the car?
MR. SANDIFER: I surrendered it.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You voluntarily gave it back?
MR. SANDIFER: I did, sir.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And what's the status on that?
MR. SANDIFER: At this time I have a -- I'm working with
Mazda America to work a payment plan out with them. I'm supposed
to be talking with them this week on that.
MR. WHITE: There's one other item on here, Mr. Sandifer, the
Ibis Club Apartments, nearly $2,000. What's the status ofthat?
MR. SANDIFER: We moved out of there a couple of years ago.
We had lived there for about six years. There were some damages to
the apartment.
We're presently talking with them as well about -- they didn't
apply our security deposit to any of it, they just kind oftook it.
Now, that's not really an excuse. And, you know, at the end of
the day I'm still going to have to pay for it and I agree that I have to
pay for it. Everything you see on there, I will pay for. I'm not trying to
make an excuse of why I have a bill, so --
MR. WHITE: Could you give us an estimate of how long you
feel it might take you to make those payments in full?
MR. SANDIFER: Probably within the next six to eight months.
And there's not a great deal of money on there, it's just a lot of
small stuff that I need to take care of.
MR. WHITE: I don't disagree, but that's the reason why we're
here.
MR. SANDIFER: Yes, sir, I understand.
MR. WHITE: Did Sears ever issue you a credit card?
Page 65
161 t~ A
August 19, 2009 6
MR. SANDIFER: I've never had anything from Sears. I don't
remem -- I don't think I've ever applied to Sears.
MR. L YKOS: Is there a recommendation from staff on this,
Michael?
MR. OSSORlO: I recommend we approve and put him on
probation for six months and within six months have a credit report in
my office. And if it makes improvement, probation will be lifted. If
not, we'll schedule it for the board meeting, just as we've done in the
past. As a matter of fact, I have one on my desk right now.
MR. WHITE: I move the recommendation of staff, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Got a motion and a second to approve
with a recommendation of probationary license or report back in six
months.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
MR. L YKOS: Can we have discussion first?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay.
MR. L YKOS: So I understand properly, at the end of the
six-month period we can do another review and we can extend it six
months if we wanted to, we could --
MR. NEALE: Right. But if staff -- the way Mr. Ossorio
recommended it is if at the end of six months staff deems that his
credit's clear, that they -- he could move ahead.
MR. WHITE: We wouldn't see it.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We wouldn't see it. He will make that
choice.
MR. WHITE: Same way administratively they're always
handled.
MR. L YKOS: I understand.
MR. WHITE: I'm sure you do.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: This is not going to get missed through
Page 66
16 1'1 A 6 "1
August 19,2009
the cracks, though, right? I mean, would it be better if the motion says
that he comes back before us in six months and we look at it?
MR. L YKOS: I think I'm leaning towards let's just have him
come back in six months. Let's just take a look at what's going on.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yeah, that'll take a little heat off of you
too.
MR. WHITE: I'll amend my motion accordingly; ask the second
to do as well.
MR. LANTZ: I second.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, the motion, as amended. All in
favor, signify by saying aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. LYKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries 7-0.
Good luck to you.
MR. SANDIFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Don't forget--
MR. SANDIFER: Six months.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- six months you come back with a new
credit app. and let's see some ofthat stuff gone, okay?
MR. SANDIFER: Thank you, board.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're welcome.
You didn't want to watch him anyway, Michael.
MR. OSSORlO: No. As long as he doesn't come on Fridays.
MR. L YKOS: In six months you'll be okay.
Page 67
16 I r;~ A 6 ~1
August 19, 20'69
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, next on the agenda is a Mr.
Theodore A. Ryznar. Are you present?
MR. RYZNAR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Please come to the podium, be sworn in,
please.
MR. OSSORlO: Mr. Chairman, I want to give you a quick
overview so we don't get lost in the shuffle here.
Mr. Ryznar is a qualifier of a company called Zap Marine. He no
longer wants to qualify Zap Marine. I think he owned 50 percent of it.
He came in, disqualified himself and then tried to open up another
marine company, another -- qualify another company.
We checked his credit on Zap Marine and there was a substantial
judgment on Zap Marine. So therefore, I was not able to go ahead and
reissue him a new certificate to a new company due to the fact that he
had a judgment on the previous one ofthe one he qualifies now. But
maybe he can elaborate more.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: How long have you been here in
business, sir?
MR.R)TZNAR:Pardon?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: How long have you been in business
here?
MR. RYZNAR: I've been in business 25 years now.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I mean with the--
MR. RYZNAR: With the county?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No, not with the county, no. With your
marine -- the company you qualified before, Ryzap (sic).
MR. OSSORIO: Zap Marine.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Zap Marine.
MR. OSSORIO: He still qualifies Zap Marine. He doesn't want
to qualify -- he doesn't want -- he was in limbo. He came in and
thought about disqualifying Zap Marine to qualify another company.
Page 68
1611 A6''1f
August 19,2009
He didn't want to associate with Zap Marine anymore. And when he
pulled his credit he figured that well, wait a minute, if I get rid of Zap
Marine, I can't get it back due to the fact that my -- I have a judgment
on Zap Marine. So everything's at status quo.
He wishes to go ahead and disqualify Zap Marine and qualify
another company. But before he does that, he wants your approval to
go ahead and open up another company to apply for a new license.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So he doesn't lose them both.
MR. OSSORlO: So he doesn't lose them both. So ifhe
disqualifies Zap and then he' stuck with no license versus right now he
has Zap Marine but with a judgment.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, one last question to you then.
Under Zap Marine, with this judgment that's against him from Zap
Marine, as a qualifier for the company he's responsible for this
judgment, correct?
MR. R YZNAR: I have two other members in it, and I was
outvoted on that. I explained that in my letter to the board. I have tried
to negotiate to get it settled. We've offered settlement on it and they
refused to do it.
MR. NEALE: Mr. Joslin?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, sir.
MR. NEALE: If it's just a civil judgment against the corporation,
not a licensing violation or a fine imposed on his license, he's no more
responsible for that judgment than if you had a judgment against your
company for something and -- you know, that's the reason he's
incorporated, basically is, you know, he's a limited liability company,
and that limits his liability for that judgment personally.
Unless they joined him personally in the lawsuit, the judgment is
against the company, not against him personally. It doesn't have
anything to do with his licensure specifically, unless it was ajudgment
against his license.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So we're not looking at a judgment at all
Page 69
16 rr A 6-
August 19,2009
then; is that what you're saying?
MR. NEALE: Well, you can look at the judgment. But just to
say that he as a qualifier is responsible isn't correct.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay.
MR. NEALE: That doesn't -- him being a qualifier doesn't make
him any more liable than any other shareholder in that company.
MR. OSSORlO: Mr. Neale, if you look under 489, and I don't
know the section, but it does say something in there, 489-127, Section
I, I think, or something. It says if a licensee fails to pay his civil
judgment, that is a ci -- that is not a defense for a licensee that says I
have no part of it. So there is a section in 489 that says a licensee is
responsible for taking care of his civil penalties -- it says civil
judgments -- within a reasonable amount of time or there's a charge
for it.
MR. NEALE: Ifthose judgments are pertaining to the
contractor, typically.
MR. OSSORlO: Well, it says against the qualified business.
Licensee pertaining to his qualified business.
And I'd tell you, Mr. Zap Marine is a qualified business. He
owns 50 percent of it and there's a civil judgment.
In good faith I could not go ahead and issue him a new
certificate with a civil judgment on top of it. The board may want to,
but unfortunately the licensing refers that quite often.
MR. JERULLE: Mr. Ryznar, how much do you own of Zap
Marine?
MR. RYZNAR: All the shares were divided 33 percent. And to
be a qualifier as a member, LLC member corporation, I don't know
how -- well, we all divided three ways. Voting was all three ways.
The ownership of it, I had a majority of the equipment in the
stock in the company, the 50 percent.
MR. WHITE: Of the 50,000 shares, you had 25,000?
MR. RYZNAR: Ofthe 50,000 -- no, we don't have shares in the
Page 70
Au~k1~Joo~A 6 ~
corporation. It's LLC.
MR. WHITE: Then why is there a document at the last page of
this that says that somebody has 50 percent of25,000 shares.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's the new company.
MR. L YKOS: That's the new company.
MR. WHITE: My mistake.
Okay, as far as the managing members go--
MR. RYZNAR: Managing members, we have all 33 percent.
MR. WHITE: With equal voting rights.
MR. RYZNAR: Right.
MR. WHITE: And can you explain, if you know, the rationale
your other two members gave for not resolving this suit, working it
out as stated you wanted to do?
MR. RYZNAR: Well, as stated in the letter, that we were paying
double for this piece of equipment. The company would not furnish
the information, bill of sale and everything and deposit for us. We had
the item financed. And finally after paying -- instead of $20,000 for it
we were going to pay $40,000 for this piece of equipment under their
lease agreement. And they said no way are we going to do that.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Was there a copy ofthe lease agreement
that was signed by someone when you originally received this
equipment?
MR. RYZNAR: When we first started negotiation, yes, there
was. And it was signed by two members. But after we were wanting to
purchase this piece of equipment, we took it to our bank, we had the
financing available, they approved it. And turned around, all we
needed was documentation from that company.
In the meantime they were charging us $3,500 a month rent for
this thing that we were still negotiating on a lease agreement for, with
them and our bank. And here I am, stuck with like 14,000 or $15,000
worth of rental on this equipment, when if they would have furnished
the information right up front, I would have purchased it through my
Page 71
161'1 A6"1,
August 19,2009
bank, which they did not.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And they wouldn't give you any
compensation back for the amount of times --
MR. RYZNAR: No.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- that you rented it or the amount of
money you put into the rent?
MR. RYZNAR: No. They wanted to charge me $18,000. And
then they didn't even acknowledge our deposit on the thing.
MR. JERULLE: So you want to leave Zap Marine -- you want to
take your license from Zap Marine and move it over to Precision?
MR. RYZNAR: Yes.
MR. JERULLE: And you want to leave that debt with Zap
Marine?
MR. RYZNAR: Yes.
MR. JERULLE: And you have not paid anything on that debt?
MR. RYZNAR: No. They --
MR. JERULLE: Did you plan on paying anything on that debt?
MR. RYZNAR: They told us that they would rather use it for tax
write-off than -- we offered 50 percent on it to settle and they said no,
we'd rather use it for a tax write-off.
MR. JERULLE: Well, they want the whole amount.
MR. RYZNAR: Yes.
MR. JERULLE: My point is, is that you're abandoning Zap
Marine and their debt to start a new company --
MR. RYZNAR: I have --
MR. JERULLE: -- and you feel no obligation to payoff that
debt.
MR. RYZNAR: I have two partners; one moved to Costa Rica,
the other one quit.
MR. JERULLE: Okay. Did you pay off33 and a third percent of
that debt?
MR. RYZNAR: Could I?
Page 72
A61
A1St 19,1009
MR. JERULLE: Have you?
MR. RYZNAR: No.
MR. JERULLE: Do you have plans to?
MR. RYZNAR: No, I don't have plans to do it because they've
already used it for a write-off.
MR. JERULLE: I just don't feel comfortable with somebody
abandoning -- you know, moving their license from one company to
another company and leaving debt. Personally I just -- I just don't
think that's the right thing to do.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And now all the other percentage of
shareholders or members now are gone, so --
MR. RYZNAR: They're not completely gone, but they're still
there. You know, one moved to Costa Rica, still in touch with things,
and the other one, he actually quit the company.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, in my mind it says gone, I mean,
in a sense. They're not here still functioning as a business, apparently.
And now you're wanting to again remove yourself from the business
and just leave Zap Marine out here with a debt and --
MR. RYZNAR: Zap Marine is still going to be in business, but
it's not going to be in the marine business. I have two new partners
that want to start up on the precision seawall and dock.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm just afraid that when this lawsuit
does come to a head and they wait long enough and the collections get
high enough and the dollars grow enough that when they do come
back and try to recover this money that this new company of yours is
going to be suffering and you --
MR. R YZNAR: It's already been judged. They've already got a
judgment against it.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, they can act on ajudgment,
though.
MR. RYZNAR: Yeah. Well, I furnished information to them and
giving them all that.
Page 73
1611 A6 "
August 19, 2009
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: What's your recommendation, Mr.
Ossorio? What do you think? I'll ask you.
MR. OSSORlO: Well, this is something that doesn't happen that
often. I recommend that we deny him a new certificate to open up a
new business, a new qualified business, until he gets the facts to you
other than saying that I tried to give 50 percent to the company or this
is for -- this is all hearsay, which is good, but I think ifhe comes back
to the board on a future date and says okay, here's a certified letter
saying I want to negotiate with him for 50 percent, I don't know why
anyone wouldn't want to take 50 percent. As somebody told me, a bird
in the hand is better than two in the bush.
So, you know, he needs to provide that documentation to you
versus him just telling you. And he needs to provide that
documentation that his partners left to Costa Rica and he was a
managing member and he wasn't responsible. But he's a qualifier, he's
responsible for the day-to-day operation of the business, hiring and
firing, and under State Statute 489 he could be accountable for the
qualified business activities, ifhe is a primary qualifier.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's the way I understand the law. I
mean --
MR. NEALE: However --
MR. OSSORlO: However.
MR. NEALE: -- let's take this to a point.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay.
MR. NEALE: And I will do the research on it for next meeting.
But that would make the assumption that if you have a qualifier
for Bonita Bay Group or WCI and they go bankrupt, that he then
becomes liable for every debt of Bonita Bay Group or WCI.
MR. LANTZ: Unless they have a financially responsible officer.
MR. NEALE: Even --
MR. OSSORlO: A bankruptcy --
MR. NEALE: Unless they do. But at that --
Page 74
AuJs~J,!2109'A 6'
MR. OSSORlO: Mr. Neale?
MR. NEALE: -- these are issues for contracting, not for general
civil judgments.
MR. OSSORlO: You're absolutely correct. If it was a
bankruptcy, I wouldn't be here today. We've issued many licenses
with current bankruptcy or in the process of bankruptcy . Well, this is a
civil judgment. Could have been a homeowner, could be anyone. It's
not a judgment -- I mean it's not a bankruptcy. Ifit was a bankruptcy,
you're absolutely right.
MR. NEALE: But even at that, what I want the board to consider
and I want to review is let's assume neither of these companies -- you
know, Bonita Bay's not bankrupt yet. Would you want to be the
qualifier as contractors and liable for every judgment against that
company?
MR. RYZNAR: I'm doing this to protect my license.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I see your point, Mr. Neale. Yeah, I see
your point.
MR. OSSORlO: Do you have a copy of 489?
MR. NEALE: This is saying that if one of your employees gets
in a car wreck and there is a judgment against your company, because
of that car wreck, nothing to do with your contracting, that that
judgment would automatically, based on the logic you're using, attach
to you personally as a contractor as the qualifier. Why then would
anyone have an incorporated contracting business?
MR. WHITE: I think the distinction that I see Mr. Neale making
is that if the judgment were something that pertained to a contract with
a landowner, a property owner for a seawall or a dock, and that would
be something that I think you'd see the relationship between the
judgment and the license.
What we have here is some separate business arrangement for
the purchase of a piece of equipment that -- I agree with Mr. Ossorio,
there probably could be better documentary evidence of what the facts
Page 75
Aug199,'2J9' A 6
are here, but we have the sworn statement under oath.
So I'm just trying to give you another way of seeing what Mr.
Neale is sharing with you, that there should be some relationship
between his license and a contract as opposed to some other business
or personal injury or some other aspect of judgment that can be levied
against the business organization.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: But this judgment that's against the
business is a piece of equipment that was purchased for the use of that
business. So wouldn't it tie into the business entity that it's being used
for as in a sense a contract with --
MR. NEALE: Well, so then just taking it one step further, you
go out and purchase a car, a truck to be used in your business --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right.
MR. NEALE: -- and you buy it through the business, no
personal guarantee on the note. Business has trouble, you don't make
the payments. They take the truck back. They get a judgment against
the business. Should that also be a personal judgment against you as
the qualifier?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No.
MR. NEALE: Okay.
MR. JERULLE: But it doesn't change the fact that he says that
he owns 33 and a third percent of Zap Marine and he's obligated for
33 and a third percent ofthe debt of Zap Marine.
MR. NEALE: Not unless he signed a personal guarantee.
MR. JERULLE: He owns part ofthat company and that
company has a debt. Is he not responsible for that debt?
MR. NEALE: Not unless he signed a personal guarantee.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No.
MR. JERULLE: And do we know --
MR. NEALE: That's why you have a corporation.
MR. JERULLE: Then we don't know if he signed a personal
guarantee then.
Page 76
AuguJ~,!OI~ A 6
MR. RYZNAR: No, I did not.
MR. JERULLE: We don't have any docu --
MR. NEALE: But the judgment is only against Zap Marine, as
far as we can tell. Now, we don't have adequate evidence on what the
judgment was, don't have adequate evidence on who it was against,
whether he was personally liable on it --
MR. JERULLE: I'm still not comfortable with the fact that -- I
have a contractor's license, and I just am not comfortable with the fact
that my company owes somebody money and I don't want to pay it so
I'm just going to move my license to another company. That's an
excuse not to pay.
And I'm not comfortable and I'm not going to vote that we allow
that to happen. I just don't think it's correct.
MR. RYZNAR: That's not the reasoning why I'm doing this. I
have 99.9 percent customers that have all been satisfied. I'm trying to
protect myself against this, because of decisions on other parts of the
other two owners on this thing.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Let me ask you a question then, and
maybe I can clear some of it out. I'd still like to see some proof.
But when you bought this piece of equipment or you signed
some type of a contract or lease agreement or whatever you did to get
this piece of equipment, someone had to go into that office or
wherever you purchased it at and sign something that says, okay, we
agree to X, Y and Z, at least for "X" number of years.
Is that something that you did or that your partners did, or who
signed that piece of paper?
MR. RYZNAR: I signed the piece of paper.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: How did you sign it as?
MR. RYZNAR: Under the corporation.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Under the corporate name.
MR. RYZNAR: Yes. Not personally.
MR. JERULLE: I'd like to see that.
Page 77
, A64
Augul ~, ~~
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead.
MR. L YKOS: There are two credit reports in the packet, one for
Mr. Ryznar personal and one for the business Zap Marine. The
judgment is against Zap Marine, it's not on Mr. Ryznar's credit report.
Which means that the judgment is against the company and not
against him personally.
MR. JERULLE: I accept that. But I'm still not comfortable with
somebody, seems to me, abandoning one company to start another
company because there's debt.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have to agree with you, Mr. Jerulle.
MR. L YKOS: Well, there's a saying, and I'm paraphrasing, I
know I won't say it right, that you can't legislate morality. And you
might think this is a moral issue, but law doesn't necessarily dictate
morality, it -- there's a corporate shield for a reason. And even though
you might not invoke it for a moral standpoint, there is a corporate
shield to protect us as personal owners of a business, or officers of a
corporation.
MR. NEALE: Now this would be a completely different issue if
he had an outstanding judgment from the Contractor Licensing Board
for a penalty. That's directly related to his contracting business. Or if
he had an outstanding judgment on a specific contracting business,
that's potentially it. But for something like purchasing equipment --
MR. JERULLE: I understand what you're saying. I understand
what you're saying, but you haven't changed my mind.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm going to -- another question.
MR. WHITE: In may ask Mr. Ryznar? What are your thoughts
if you were to have offered to APEI one-third of the value ofthe
judgment in exchange for a release?
MR. RYZNAR: I've offered 50 percent.
MR. WHITE: And you were told that they wouldn't give you a
release as a managing member?
MR. RYZNAR: No.
Page 78
..
August 11,~oJ91 I A 6
MR. WHITE: So they wouldn't release Zap --
MR. RYZNAR: They wouldn't release--
MR. WHITE: -- totally?
Because there's a distinction here between you going to them as
a managing member and saying hey look, I've got this Contractor
Licensing Board that I'm working with -- you don't have to tell them
that, of course. But the point is you're trying to go and talk to them to
get a release of you as the managing member.
MR. RYZNAR: I have tried for three months now to settle with
them. And they said no. I have offered them $10,000 to settle this
thing -- that's 50 percent -- to settle this thing and get it out ofthe
bushes, as you might say.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos, do you have a question?
MR. L YKOS: Well, I was going to say, I think I've got a sense
of where you guys are trying to go with this. We want to get
something from him so that he recognizes that he has some obligation.
But with regard to the specifics of Mr. White's question, if this was me
and let's say the judgment was for $100,000, if you ask for a personal
release, you're removing the corporate shield. You're now asking for a
personal release when the corporate shield is there to protect you
personally. You'd almost be opening the door to then being -- having a
judgment against you personally if you ask for a personal release.
You've got to maintain the separation between the person and the
corporation.
MR. NEALE: I mean, you don't want to sit there and say well,
release me personally, because then by extension you're saying I had
some personal liability .
MR. L YKOS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right.
MR. WHITE: Which is why I said as a managing --
MR. NEALE: As a managing mem -- release my interest as a
managing member from any --
Page 79
1611 A6~
August 19, 2009
MR. WHITE: Exactly.
MR. L YKOS: That still gets--
MR. NEALE: It's -- I don't know whether I'd recommend it, but
yeah.
MR. WHITE: Well, I'm just trying to find out what it is that
might be comfortable grounds for our board to be able to actually
consider and approve it. So I'm just trying to find something that may
allow us to move forward from today and meet Mr. Ossorio's--
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: At this time, is Zap Marine active?
MR. RYZNAR: Yes.
MR. OSSORlO: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And it's still in business?
MR. RYZNAR: Yes.
MR. OSSORlO: I just want to read something in there, and then
we'll clarify it. And I think I have a resolution here.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay.
MR. OSSORIO: This is under 489-129, Section Q. Failure to
satisfy within a reasonable time terms of a civil judgment obtained
against a licensee, or the business organization qualified by the
licensee relating to practicing of a licensee's profession.
Now, that's a violation of -- that's discipline. So what we can do
is, is we can go ahead and issue him a temporary -- a new license, new
certificate, put him on some probationary period. If he doesn't pay that
with -- that judgment within a reasonable amount of time, we would
charge him under 4.2 under misconduct of a licensed company.
MR. WHITE: Could you read the phrase about relating to again?
MR. OSSORlO: It says relating to the practice ofthe licensee's
profession, which is marine contracting. And I guess if you buy
marine equipment, that would be related to his profession. If you --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I can understand --
MR. WHITE: I think that --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- your point. Okay, one at a time.
Page 80
Augustll,90J91 A 6 ·
MR. WHITE: -- splits the hair that Mr. --
MR. NEALE: I would not recommend this board go down that
road.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No.
MR. OSSORlO: Well, I'm just --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I mean, I can see your point, Mr.
Ossorio, for being able to put a handhold on him as far as to come
back later on after he -- we say he pays this debt off. But in some
cases in some ways I'm looking at this debt and saying okay, we have
three people who are in this corporation and apparently all three want
to walk away. And apparently the people that they owe the money to
aren't willing to settle. So other than to maybe approve it with a
probationary period and see what happens with it, if it's going to come
to a head, I don't think it's going to take longer than a period of time
before something's --
MR. NEALE: There's already a judgment against the business.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right.
MR. NEALE: They can do nothing to enforce that judgment
against this gentleman.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. Personally.
MR. NEALE: Personally. The judgment's against the business.
They can go after Zap Marine's assets, they can shut it down, they can
take its typewriters --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right.
MR. NEALE: -- they can do whatever. But, you know, as Mr.
Lykos correctly points out, they don't have a judgment against this
gentleman.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. I see your point totally.
MR. WHITE: And it appears from what we've been told, and
this may be the level of documentary evidence Mr. Ossorio is looking
for, the idea of being that somehow API has handled this as a tax
write-off that could be documented. Because that would seem to be
Page 81
1 f.... I 1 A 6 .~
August4. g: 2bo;
the resolution of the matter from the perspective of could they
thereafter then attempt to attach the assets of Zap Marine. If they've
already effectively written this off as a loss on their books for tax
purposes, it seems they would be in a difficult position if they later on
tried to come back --
MR. NEALE: In effect they should issue a 1099 to Zap Marine
showing they have taken that write-off.
MR. L YKOS: There should be documentation.
MR. NEALE: They should. I mean, whether they will or not,
that's -- a lot of places choose not to do that, so --
MR. RYZNAR: They won't even talk to me.
MR. NEALE: So it's unlikely that he's going to get that.
MR. WHITE: The other thing, I think that, you know, in looking
at the letter that was provided to us in our packet dated June 26th, at
the end of the second to last paragraph it says that apparently also the
partners, I don't know why it says former business partners, when the
issue of taking an appeal which seemed to be one that would have
been meritorious because there was not proper notice, the former
partners, it says, voted against doing so.
So I don't understand why they would take that action, but it
seems to be consistent with the notion that efforts have been made to
try to prevent the judgment first from attaching and then second, even
in light of the fact that it may not have been warranted legally, would
still have been a good faith effort, from what the gentleman's told us
today, and he has on the record, to try to resolve it. So I just don't want
to leave him with his hands tied and us feeling that he hadn't made a
good faith effort.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos?
MR. L YKOS: This question is for either one of our or both of
our attorneys.
Will the judgment expire if it's not acted on in a certain time
frame? Is there --
Page 82
161'1 A6
August 19,2009
MR. NEALE: Yeah, you've got a certain time in which to
enforce a judgment.
MR. L YKOS: It's 20 years.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, 20 years.
MR. L YKOS: Longer than --
MR. NEALE: Yeah, but --
MR. L YKOS: Like with liens, if we don't act on them in one
year, they expire. But we're not talking about that kind of a time
frame. This is something that would be a lot longer.
MR. NEALE: No, but the thing is they're -- you know, as you
point out, you know, it's by today's standards a relatively small
judgment against a company that I'm sure they -- as I would if I were
handling the litigation, I would have investigated that company to see
if they got any assets. If they don't have any real assets, I'm not going
to spend a whole lot of my client's money chasing down a company
that has nothing.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right.
MR. NEALE: So you got the judgment hanging out there. If
something happens, you enforce it. If not, it's a judgment that hangs
out there.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Boyd?
MR. BOYD: Mr. Ryznar, who has the piece of equipment? Does
the APIE or whatever, do they have the piece of equipment back?
MR. RYZNAR: Yes, they do. I returned it.
MR. BOYD: Okay. So what they're going to do is they're going
to write off the $20,000. They got the piece of equipment back, they're
going to lease it out again and they're going to make money.
MR. NEALE: Exactly.
MR. RYZNAR: Yes.
MR. NEALE: They got it, they took it back, they got it again.
Yeah, that's why they don't want to settle, because then they'd
have to show what kind of compensation they received for the
Page 83
AuguJ ~, 101 A 6
releasing of that equipment, reduce their judgment amount by that,
you know, because they'd have to mitigate the damages, reduce -- the
judgment at the end of the day may be zero once you go through that
dance. So --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, let's put this to sleep, huh? I'll
make a motion that we approve the application for Mr. Ryznar to
qualify and get his license for Precission Drywalling.
MR. WHITE: Second.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second. All in favor
signify -- any discussion first. Any further discussion?
MR. WHITE: Just one point, Mr. Chairman. There seems to be
some lack of precision about the spelling of Precission --
MR. RYZNAR: Two S's.
MR. WHITE: Some instances it's two, some instances it's one.
MR. NEALE: I guess it's supposed to be two.
MR. WHITE: That's the way it was formed and I would think
that's the way that the license, if it's going to be issued should be
issued.
MR. JERULLE: Regarding the discussion, I still don't
understand. He has a corporation, he has a license. Why he needs to
transfer that license.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think the biggest--
MR. JERULLE: But what our obligation is, to give it to him
when he already has that opportunity.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, it's like Mr. Neale said, in a sense
what we're doing is protecting his license that he has now because of a
judgment that is against the corporation with three parties involved.
MR. NEALE: There's only one reason this is here, and that's
because it was referred to the board by the Contractor Licensing
Supervisor, because he had a question on the application.
MR. JERULLE: So my opportunity (sic) is he has an
opportunity to act as Zap Marine tomorrow, does he not?
Page 84
16 I' A6!
August 19,109
MR. NEALE: Yes.
MR. JERULLE: What obligation do we have to give him -- to
transfer that license? We're not taking away anything from him. He
already can go out and work and do seawalls under Zap Marine. Why
do we want to give him an opportunity not to pay a debt?
I just think we have a responsibility to Collier County to -- if
there's something that we can do to help or prevent something in the
future -- he has a license entity. Let him operate under that license
entity and deal with the debt that way. Why are we letting him off the
hook?
MR. NEALE: The thing is just the transferring of the license
doesn't change his ownership in Zap Marine. And that's the only way
they get to him as far as that judgment. He still owns Zap Marine. He
hasn't gotten rid of it, correct? So that judgment still -- however it
may, which it probably doesn't, attach to the owners that Zap Marine
still has.
MR. JERULLE: I understand that. But we're still giving him the
opportunity to operate under another entity. And even giving him a
less chance of paying off the debt or dealing with the debt. And he has
more of an incentive to deal with the debt if he keeps his license with
Zap Marine.
MR. WHITE: It seems to me that Zap Marine is dysfunctional in
terms ofthe --
MR. NEALE: At best.
MR. WHITE: -- business organization to make effective
management decisions.
MR. JERULLE: Then dissolve it.
MR. WHITE: That would be, logically speaking, even worse
scenario than the one you're suggesting is inappropriate now. Because
then if they dissolve it, there'd be no way that you'd ever have any
responsibility and opportunity to have APE! properly paid back.
MR. JERULLE: Depends on how you dissolve it.
Page 85
Augls~ J, ~09 A 6 ·
MR. WHITE: Which I believe they have -- that Zap Marine
made every effort, he as a managing member, to rightfully work with
him, if possible. But there's nothing that tells me that this is the kind of
a debt that he has sought to avoid and use the shell of a new
corporation or new entity to defraud someone.
It seems to me that -- I accept the rationale that this is the only
way he can protect his license in terms of qualifying a new entity. And
one that's properly capitalized is one that seems to have --
MR. JERULLE: I know which way I'm going to vote. And I just
hope that he doesn't come back in front of us again with something
similar with the Precission Marine.
MR. WHITE: Well, the rest of his credit for Zap Marine looks
good.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: He has outstanding credit for the rest of
the items. I mean, there's nothing derogatory on there.
Anyway, motion on the floor. We have a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All in favor, signify the motion by
saymg aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. LYKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All opposed?
MR. JERULLE: Nay.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Nay (sic).
Motion carries six in favor, one opposed.
MR. RYZNAR: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Good luck to you.
Page 86
Augls~ J, 2109 A 6
MR. RYZNAR: Thank you.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, we have one second -- to qualify
second entity.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: One more.
MR. OSSORlO: Bixby.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. OSSORIO: I don't know how the court reporter feels. We
can hurry up and finish this second entity, or take a few minute break
and then we'll try to go ahead and do these cases within an hour or so,
or --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Are both cases going to be heard?
MR. OSSORlO: Both cases are going to be heard. I anticipate
hopefully these cases will go quickly.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, so --
MR. NEALE: Take a break?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, let's get this second entity out of
the way first and then we'll discuss how we're going to take a break
and what we're going to hear then.
MR. NEALE: Break's right after the second entity, though.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right.
I have a Brent Bixby. Would you please come up and be sworn
in, please.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Bixby, just for the record, I'd like
you to -- the board and members of the board to recognize that I've
known Mr. Bixby for many years and I know the quality -- or the type
of work he does now. And ifthere's any question about me hearing
this case, then they need to make that response now.
You're okay with it?
MR. BIXBY: Yeah, I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Mr. Bixby, you are here to qualify
a second entity called Grinders; is that correct?
Page 87
~ I t A 6 ,.
Auglt19,2Jo9
MR. BIXBY: Correct, yes.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And you currently now qualify a lawn
service; is that correct?
MR. BIXBY: Yes. Native Son.
MR. OSSORlO: A landscaping company.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: A landscape company, that's right.
MR. OSSORIO: That can do stump grinding and tree service
work. So he's licensed as a landscaping (sic). So if you qualify another
company, he'd have two landscaping companies: One is Native Son
and the other one is Grinder, doing business as Holiday Lights,
Incorporated?
MR. BIXBY: Correct.
MR. WHITE: The other way around.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yeah, it's the other way around.
Will both -- I'm sorry, Holiday Lights, Inc. and d/b/a Grinders is
the same company?
MR. BIXBY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. And Native Sons Lawn Service --
Landscape Service is your other company? Or is it --
MR. BIXBY: I qualify them.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- the primary company?
MR. BIXBY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. I've looked at your credit report
and it looks pretty impressive, considering. I've known you for a long
time.
I do have one major problem and that is that right now you own
Native Son Landscape, Inc. And it says on the opening statement that
this company I do not have stock or ownership in.
MR. BIXBY: No, I do not own it.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. But you have a silent role in the
landscaping?
MR. BIXBY: Yes.
Page 88
Atg~stI1)2009A 6 1
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Now, can you kind of clarify that a little
bit? I'm a little bit confused. As an owner or as a license holder for
Native Son Landscape, Inc.
MR. BIXBY: I went to work for Native Son and they had a
maintenance in Hurricane Wilma. So when my company -- I dissolved
that and I qualified Native Son. So that while I was there we were
doing landscape. And I left my license with them just so I could keep
it active so if I needed it in the future.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. But that is your primary source of
companies right now; Native Sons is the only company that you
qualify, correct?
MR. BIXBY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Ossorio, or maybe Mr. Neale, I'm
not sure, but is there anything in the ordinance that says that a
particular qualifier has to be a portion of an ownership in it?
MR. OSSORIO: Has to have a letter of authorization. Which
when we first came in for a certificate for Native Son, a letter of
authorization from the managing member or the owner of Native Son
authorized him to work on his behalf and he would be responsible for
anything construction related or judgments, whatever you want to call
it, he would be responsible for.
MR. L YKOS: Is this Grinders company a company that was
here in front us before?
MR. OSSORlO: No.
MR. L YKOS: That name sounded familiar.
MR. NEALE: No.
MR. L YKOS: Maybe it was just the term stump grinder.
MR. NEALE: We did have a stump grinder --
MR. OSSORlO: We had a stump grinder.
MR. NEALE: -- a couple months ago.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So we went through the grinding
situation there for a little while.
Page 89
AuJ.~J, ~09 A 6 '
MR. OSSORlO: We resolved that.
MR. NEALE: We ground that into the ground.
MR. L YKOS: Yes, we beat that one to death.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I just have one thing that I picked
up in the second entity qualification guidelines page, as far as the
application fees and all the fees and all the things that are listed as far
as what's inside the packet now.
But at the very end it kind of makes me wonder. I'm going to
read it out just so we know. It should be noted that the qualifier must
be responsible for and capable of supervising, directing, managing and
controlling both the contracting activities ofthe entity he or she now
qualifies, as well as the proposed entity.
Managing and contracting activities include the proper collection
and disbursement of funds and the proper payment of subcontractors
and suppliers.
In addition, he or she must be responsible for and capable of
supervision, direction, management and control of all the entities for
which he or she pulls permits.
In a nutshell this tells me that he should be some kind of a
something within Native Son, Inc.
MR. OSSORlO: He is. By letter of authorization from the
owner, it gives him authorization to be the qualifier. You just named
what a qualifier does. When we talk to a qualified business, we always
try to talk to the licensee of the qualifier, not necessarily the owner. So
if there's ever a complaint or a question on payroll, question on any
services, the qualifier's the first person we talk to, no matter ifhe's in
Michigan, Alaska.
The state really takes a role on what does a qualifier do and how
he runs his company, and they think that supervision means a phone
call. So in call up Native Son and he's not working that day or he's
not on the job site, he's a phone call away.
Which I'm assuming they know who you are and you work.
Page 90
Augul ~, ~OJ9 A 6 ~
MR. BIXBY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Do you have the ability to sign checks?
MR. BIXBY: No.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Well, the last entry on here says,
at the sole discretion ofthe -- and option ofthe board, the board may
deem it a requirement that the qualifier be able to sign on checks
relating to construction payables.
So with that said, I would be more inclined to say I would
approve the second entity or the stump grinding, but I would like to
see Native Son Landscape, I would like to see something to do with
you being able to at least write checks on that company.
Should it get in trouble or should there be situations where
someone else doesn't pay the bill, you're able to go in there and sign
checks to pay people or to take care of it, not just be something that
sits on the outside that has no control at all, other than you are funding
them their license. Which in some ways sounds to me like you're
selling the license.
MR. L YKOS: Michael, what's your recommendation on this?
MR. OSSORlO: Well, I think we should approve it. I don't know
what's in his mindset, but he's the qualifier of Native Son and he takes
that responsibility, and I have no problem.
MR. L YKOS: He already qualifies Native Son.
MR. OSSORlO: Exactly right.
MR. L YKOS: This is about their company.
MR. OSSORlO: Well, I have no problem him qualifying --
MR. NEALE: This has nothing to do with Native Son at all.
MR. L YKOS: So the fact that he mayor may not sign checks for
Native Son --
MR. NEALE: It's irrelevant.
MR. OSSORIO: That's right.
MR. L YKOS: -- he's already a qualifier.
MR. NEALE: Right. You're not asking -- all you're asking is if
Page 91
161t'1 A6
August 19,2009
he can qualify a company now.
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, one at a time.
MR. NEALE: I mean, this question is whether he can qualify a
company as a second entity that he owns 100 percent of. That's all the
question is. He already qualifies Native Son. Ignore the fact that he
qualifies Native Son, unless Native Son has some major issues in front
of this board. That's already -- he's qualifying them.
The only issue is are you going to permit him to also qualify
Grinders.
MR. L YKOS: Which he is sole owner of.
MR. NEALE: Which he is sole owner of, et cetera.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Totally.
MR. L YKOS: Motion to approve, Lykos.
MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second to approve. All in
favor, signify by saying aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries.
MR. BIXBY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Good luck.
MR. BIXBY: Appreciate it.
MR. OSSORlO: Mr. Chairman, I recommend we take a
15-minute break. Terry Jerulle won't be here after noon; am I correct?
MR. JERULLE: That's correct.
Page 92
16 It A6
August 19,2009
MR. OSSORlO: Unless you want to take a lunch. I prefer to take
a 15-minute break, since all the respondents are here.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's fine.
MR. OSSORlO: If the court reporter doesn't mind.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Keep on going? All right, we'll take a
15-minute recess and we'll return at five minutes after 12:00.
(Recess. )
(At which time, Mr. Jerulle is absent.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I'll call back to order the August
19th, 2009 Contractor -- Collier County Contractor Licensing Board
meeting, and we'll continue where we left off.
The next case before us is a public hearing -- I'm sorry, is there
any old business before we go into that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No? We'll discuss it afterwards.
Public hearings. Case No. 2009-07, a James G. Schuck and
Donald P. Ricci, Sr., d/b/a Marco Marine Construction, Inc.
Are you present?
MR. SCHUCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Come to the podium and be sworn in,
please.
(Ms. Clements and Mr. Schuck were duly sworn.)
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please.
MR. SCHUCK: James G. Schuck.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And Karen, you'll be presenting the
case?
MS. CLEMENTS: Karen Clements, Contractor Licensing
Officer.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, just for the record, I'm going to
read the hearings and procedures on how we're going to conduct this
particular case.
The hearings are conducted pursuant to the procedures set out in
Page 93
16fl A6'
August 19,2009
Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, and Florida Statutes,
Chapter 489. These hearings are quasi judicial in nature. Formal rules
of evidence shall not apply, but fundamental fairness and due process
shall be observed and shall govern the proceedings.
Irrelevant, immaterial and cumulative evidence shall be
excluded, but all other evidence of the type commonly relied upon,
reasonably prudent to the persons in the conduct of their affairs shall
be admissible, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in
the trial in the courts of the State of Florida.
Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing
or eXplaining any evidence, but shall not be sufficient by itself to
support the finding, unless such hearsay would be admissible over
objection in civil actions in court.
The rules of privilege shall be effective to the same extent that
they are now and hereafter be recognized in civil actions.
Any member of the Contractor Licensing Board may question
any witnesses before the board. Each party to the proceeding's shall
have the right to call and examine witnesses, to introduce exhibits, to
cross-examine witnesses, to impeach any witness, regardless of which
party called the witness to testify, and to rebuke any evidence
presented against the party.
The chairperson shall have all the powers necessary to conduct
the proceedings at the hearing in a full, fair and impartial manner, and
to preserve order and decorum.
The general process of this hearing is for the county to present
an opening statement where it sets out the charges in general terms
and how it intends to prove them. The respondent then makes his or
her opening statements, set out in general terms, the defenses to the
charges. The county presents its case in chief, calling witnesses and
presenting evidence. The respondent may cross-examine these
witnesses.
Once the county has closed its case in chief, then the respondent
Page 94
August ll~oJ;l A 6
puts his or her defense (sic). They may call witnesses and do all the
things described earlier; that is, call and examine witnesses, introduce
exhibits, cross-examine witnesses and impeach any witness, regardless
of the party who called the witnesses to testify, and rebut any evidence
presented against the party.
After the respondent puts on his or her case, the county gets to
present a rebuttal to the respondent's presentation. When the rebuttal is
concluded, then each party gets to present closing statements, with the
county getting a second chance to rebut after the respondent's closing
arguments. The board will then close the public hearing and begin
deliberations.
Prior to beginning deliberations, the attorney for the board will
give them charge, much like charges to ajury, setting out the
parameters on which they based their decision.
During deliberations the board can ask for additional information
and clarifications from the parties. The board will then decide two
different issues: First whether the respondent is guilty of the offense
charged in the administrative complaint of what will be taken in this
manner.
If the respondent is found guilty then the board must decide the
sanctions to be imposed. The board attorney at this point will advise
board ofthe sanctions which may be imposed and the factors to
consider. The board will discuss and take a vote on those sanctions.
After the two matters are decided, the chair will read a summary
of the order to be issued by the board. This summary will set out basic
outline of the order, but will not exactly be the same language as the
final order. The final order will conclude full details under the state
law and procedure.
Does everyone understand that?
MR. LANTZ: Yes.
MR. BOYD: Yes.
MR. NEALE: It's my understanding that in this case the
Page 95
Au1u~ 1~, f009 A 6 j
respondents have agreed to stipulate to the charges. I believe that's
correct.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay.
MR. ZACHARY: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's correct. I had a
conversation with the respondent, Mr. Schuck. He has agreed that he
would accept the Count I and stipulate that Marco Marine is -- well, is
guilty of Count 1.
What I think we should do is we should have Ms. Clements give
a statement that sets out to the board what this case is about, and then
at that point I can ask some questions of Mr. Schuck to clarify his
position, his company's position, and we can conclude this at a shorter
time than going through the entire thing. And Ms. Clements can enter
the packet into evidence and we'll get on the record what the case is
about.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, that will work fine.
At this time I'd ask for a motion to accept Case No. 2009-07,
Board of Commissioners versus James G. Schuck and Donald P.
Ricci, Sr, d/b/a Marco Marine Construction, Inc., license No. 26439
and 13520 into evidence.
MR. LANTZ: So moved, Lantz.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We have a motion.
MR. L YKOS: Second, Lykos.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Second, Mr. Lykos.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
Page 96
August 1 i2~OJ 1 A 6
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries.
Karen, would you like to begin the county's case?
MS. CLEMENTS: On May 20th, 2009, the office of contractor
licensing received a complaint from John M. Carr, who's the CAM
property manager for Sunset Cay Villa Condominium Associations
located at the Port of the Islands. And it was regarding Marco Marine
Construction and the permitting of already existing docks for each unit
and the certificate of completion.
Several marine contractors proposed bids to complete permitting
and COs of floating docks at the Sunset Cay Villa Condominium.
Marco Marine Construction won the bid and started working to obtain
the permitting and COs for the floating docks.
It was for Sunset Cay Villas Buildings 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
And those are located at Port of the Islands off of U.S. 41 East.
The docks were originally constructed by the developer of the
communities at the time that the buildings were built, and included
one dock space for each condo.
The docks were never properly permitted, and the Sunset Cay
master association and the individual Sunset Cay Villa Owners
Association undertook this project to correct the oversight ofthe
developer and have the boat docks properly permitted and approved
by Collier County.
Contract verbiage states that the condos were to pay permitting
fees and an additional permit -- I'm sorry, they were to pay permitting
fees and an additional fee per contract to the contractor, which were
paid in full.
The associations paid the proposal in full and assumed the
contract was complete. A new invoice was submitted for 1,350 for
additional permit fees, also paid in full by the associations.
The official Collier County receipts appeared to be altered by
Marco Marine Construction to show an inflated permitting fee.
Mr. Carr was alerted to the situation by an officer of one ofthe
Page 97
16~f 1fl6 1
August 19,2009
associations who had questioned Marco Marine about the total permit
fee for his association for the dock project.
Marco Marine Construction gave the association a document
that appeared to be an official receipt from Collier County Permitting
Office. The association then obtained a list of actual permit fees from
the Collier County website and from official receipts provided to him
directly by Collier County Permitting Office.
The association discovered that the actual permitting fees were
significantly less than charged by Marco Marine Construction. The
association then contracted the Collier County Permitting Office.
County personnel confirmed the receipt provided by Marco Marine
Construction was not a county receipt at all, that there had in fact been
an alteration to the original official receipt.
Mr. Carr decided that these discrepancies might not be the only
altered official receipts and looked into the other association receipts.
Mr. Carr requested the other association receipts and consistently
found the same pattern of overcharging for county permit fees by
Marco Marine Construction.
The evidence is provided in the document accompanying this
complaint. All permit fees invoiced by Marco Marine Construction
have been paid by the associations.
On June 9th, 2009, Jim Schuck of Marco Marine came into our
office. Mr. Schuck was informed that the complaint had been filed
against Marco Marine Construction by Sunset Cay Villas.
Sunset Cay Villas was given an additional billing above and
beyond the original contract price. The additional billing was
substantiated by the misrepresentation of a material fact being the
official Collier County receipt.
Mr. Schuck agreed that the receipts were altered by someone at
his office.
Mr. Schuck, whose company is already on probation, agreed to
pay the money back in the amount of$14,300. And we arrived at that
Page 98
16 1'1 A6
August 19, 2'0'09
by taking the difference of the good receipt and the receipt that
appears to have been altered.
Mr. Schuck signed our letter to him stating he received
notification of the hearing to be held on August 19th at 9:00 a.m. in
the commissioners' boardroom.
We also notified Donald Ricci, Sr., who also holds a county
license.
Mr. Schuck was given the letter regarding the complaint to have
Mr. Donald Ricci sign and return to our office.
The activity construes a violation of Collier County Ordinance
2006-46, Section 4.1.22, falsifying or misrepresenting any material
fact to another person with the intent or for the purpose of engaging in
the contracting business, providing materials or services or soliciting
business for an employer as a contractor or as an employee, regardless
of any financial consideration.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, Mr. Schuck, would you like to --
MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Chairman, in can ask Mr. Schuck a
couple of questions.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead.
MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Schuck, you've heard the presentation by
the county. And as we talked before, do you agree at this time to
stipulate or not to contest the charge of -- under Section 4.1.22 in the
administrative complaint? Is that your intent here today?
MR. SCHUCK: Yes, it is.
MR. ZACHARY: Do you understand that you have a right to go
to a hearing, you have a right to hire an attorney, but it's your own free
will to decide that it would be best not to contest the complaint at this
time?
MR. SCHUCK: Yes, I understand.
MR. ZACHARY: Do you also have the authority of Mr. Ricci to
stipulate, and as Marco Marine as the owners of Marco Marine, do
you have their authority also to stipulate to this complaint?
Page 99
16 11 A6 f
August 19,2009
MR. SCHUCK: Yes, I do. They have a letter stating that fact.
MR. ZACHARY: All right, thank you.
Do you understand that by stipulating to this, the board can find
you guilty and there's not -- and would you tell the board there's not
been any agreement as to the fine or penalty that might be levied
against your company or yourself at this point?
MR. SCHUCK: There hasn't been a fine or penalty as of yet.
MR. ZACHARY: Okay. Would you agree that the charges set
forth, that receipts were received by the condo associations that
appeared to be altered or doctored that set forth dollar amounts that
were higher than those that you had agreed to in your original
contracts, and that those documents would constitute the material facts
that were misrepresented in this case?
MR. SCHUCK: Yes.
MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything else. I
think it's clear that Mr. Schuck has agreed that there were some
documents that were presented, and at this point he has agreed to
stipulate to the charge at this point.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right.
MR. ZACHARY: Do you have any statement or anything that
you wish to make, Mr. Schuck?
MR. SCHUCK: I regret the facts that happened with this. It
wasn't our intention to dupe these people out of money. It's just a
clerical error on our staff
And I have started restitution already. They have four checks for
them in the amount of$6,255.56, with two other payments to come on
September 30th and October 30th ofthis year.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Ricci (sic)--
MR. LYKOS: Mr. Schuck.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry, Mr. Schuck. I'm sorry.
I know you've been here not too long ago --
MR. SCHUCK: January.
Page 100
16 1 \1 A 6 I
August 19, 2009
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- with some other issues. I know your
license now is on probation. I don't have too much to say at the
moment.
Anybody else want to interject any comments?
MR. NEALE: Well, at this point, you know, you can finish.
Then the board will close the public hearing, and then you would vote
on --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The penalties.
MR. NEALE: Well, no, first you have to vote on guilt and then
on penalties.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Then I need a motion to close the
public hearing.
MR. WHITE: So moved, White.
MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second to close the public
hearing. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Public hearing is closed.
Now I have to read, right?
MR. NEALE: No.
MR. L YKOS: Determine guilt first, and then--
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, he's admitted to guilt.
MR. NEALE: Well, the board still--
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay.
MR. NEALE: Even though he's admitted to the charges in this
Page 101
1611A6f
August 19,2009
case, the board still has to evaluate the evidence as presented, even his
stipulation. And at that point you vote upon whether he is in fact
guilty of the charge made in this matter.
To complicate it a little bit, is I would recommend that the board
make two findings of fact as to guilt: One for Mr. Schuck and one for
Mr. Ricci, because they are two separate parties in here. And I would
suggest that you make two different motions, one for Mr. Schuck and
one for Mr. Ricci.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Gentlemen? And just for the
record, Terry Jerulle has left the meeting for today. He had something
he had to go and take care of, so he is going to be absent.
MR. NEALE: Also, I think the board ought to note on the record
that Mr. Ricci's not here, but the board is accepting Mr. Shuck's
testimony; that Mr. Ricci has authorized him to speak on his behalf, to
stipulate on his behalf and to represent him for this matter.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Do I have to repeat that again, or
does that go on the record now?
MR. NEALE: I think the board needs to make that finding.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I will make a finding that James Schuck
and Donald Ricci are both the respondents in the case of -- I'm sorry?
MR. BOYD: I've got a question. Did they pull these permits
under both licenses, or is it one licensee?
MR. SCHUCK: Just my license.
MR. BOYD: Okay. So you pulled all these permits under your
license.
MR. SCHUCK: That's correct.
MR. BOYD: Then I'd have a question of why is Mr. Ricci being
charged.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, I have the same question.
MR. LANTZ: Multiple licenses on the same company.
MR. OSSORIO: The question is not the building permit, the
question is the letter that was sent to them from Marco Marine, a
Page 102
AuguI 9, !o~ A 6
qualified business, wanted more money. So the question is -- it's not a
building permit question. We take many qualifiers to the licensing
board where no building permits are required. But he's still a qualifier
of the company and he's still responsible. The both parties are both
responsible for that activity that transpired.
The building permit -- the actual building permit is not the
question. We didn't cite him for no building permit or working out of
the scope of his permit. The qualified business under Donald Ricci, Sr.
sent letters out demanding more money and misrepresented that fact.
MR. BOYD: Okay.
MR. OSSORIO: Okay?
MR. L YKOS: Looks like Mr. Ricci and Mr. Schuck are
qualifiers for Marco Marine. So --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, let it be known that James G.
Schuck is present here to respond to the Count I of Section NO.
4.1.22, and also that he is in response to be able to speak for a Donald
P. Ricci, License No. 13520 and License No. 26439 on his behalf.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, wasn't there a document that Mr.
Schuck said he had that authorized him to speak on Mr. Ricci's
behalf?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I haven't found it in the packet.
MR. WHITE: No, I understand that, but I thought he mentioned
it as part of his testimony.
MR. SCHUCK: May I approach?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. WHITE: And if so, we're going to look at that, Mr. Schuck,
and I'm going to move that we bring it into evidence.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. NEALE: Right.
MR. ZACHARY: It will need to be marked at some point after
you look at it.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right.
Page 103
August19?2JoJ A 6
MR. NEALE: What I would do, being that this is being offered
in support of the public hearing, that the board reopen the public
hearing for the purposes of accepting this into evidence for review,
and then you can reclose the public hearing.
MR. WHITE: So moved, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: To open the public hearing? Second?
MR. WHITE: Accept it into evidence.
MR. HORN: Second, Horn.
MR. L YKOS: Second.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second to reopen the
public hearing. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Public hearing is open.
Okay, I have one piece of evidence that has been entered, as far
as evidence in the packet regarding Case No. 2009-07. I'll read it to
you aloud: Marco Marine Construction, Inc., of 1757 San Marco
Road, Post Office Box 1247, Marco Island, Florida. Collier County
Contractor Licensing Board, attention Karen Clements.
Dear Mrs. Clements: I was unable to attend the hearing on 19th
of August, 2009. I authorize authorization for James Schuck to speak
on my behalf. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely, Donald P. Ricci, Sr. Signed as of this date, August 14th,
2009.
MR. WHITE: Move it be marked as Respondent's Exhibit 1 and
admitted into evidence.
Page 104
16fl116>~
August 19, 20d~
MR. L YKOS: Second, Lykos.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second to accept this into
evidence as Motion (sic) Exhibit 1.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, while we're on the getting things
on the record, could we go ahead and get the stipulation agreement
2009-07 into evidence as Petitioner 01 ?
MR. WHITE: I'd pre -- the public hearing is still open.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right.
MR. WHITE: But we have yet to close it and make the finding
of guilt or not. So I don't know if we're not putting the cart before the
horse. But I'd defer to Mr. Neale.
MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Ossorio, is that a stipulation for the
restitution --
MR. OSSORIO: Yes.
MR. ZACHARY: -- is that what you have? It's not a stipulation
that was entered into as a result of this hearing.
So I believe Mr. Ossorio has a stipulation that was entered into
by either Mr. Schuck or Mr. Ricci. And Mr. Schuck, you could clarify
that, that there would be restitution paid; is that correct?
MR. SCHUCK: That is correct.
MR. ZACHARY: And Mr. Ossorio, I don't think you've been
sworn, but would you show Mr. Schuck that stipulation and to verify
that that is the stipulation that you signed just for restitution?
Page 105
16 1 A 6 I
August 19,2009
Is that the stipulation you agreed to?
MR. SCHUCK: Yes, I have a copy of it.
MR. ZACHARY: Well, then I'd move that into evidence as
Petitioners Exhibit 2.
MR. L YKOS: So moved, Lykos.
MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second to enter resolution
MR. NEALE: Stipulation agreement.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- stipulation agreement as Exhibit No.
2.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. LYKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries 6-0.
MR. L YKOS: Any other exhibits?
MR. NEALE: Any other exhibits?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Anything else we need to enter? No.
MR. L YKOS: I make a motion that we close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion to close.
MR. WHITE: Second.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second.
In favor, signify by saying aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
Page 106
16 I' 1 A 6
August 19, 2oot)
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Public hearing is closed.
Now we can talk.
MR. L YKOS: Well, I'll make a motion that we find James G.
Schuck, License No. 26439 in Case 2009-07, guilty of Count 1.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion.
MR. WHITE: Second.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a second, to find Mr. Schuck
guilty, and Mr. Donald P. Ricci also, Sr.
MR. NEALE: No, no, two separate motions.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry, Donald -- James G. Schuck
only under Count 1.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries.
I'll make the motion that we find Donald P. Ricci also of Marco
Marine Construction guilty of Count I, Section 4.1.22.
MR. L YKOS: Second, Lykos.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
Page 107
16 r It"1: A6
August 19, 2009
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That motion carries.
MR. NEALE: Since the board's found him in violation, it's now
time for the board to review what penalties are available and what
penalties are to be imposed on the respondents. There are several
different penalties that the board may impose. They include revocation
of the certificate of competency, suspension of that certificate, a denial
of issuance or renewal of the certificate, probation not to exceed two
years, restitution, a fine not to exceed $10,000, a public reprimand, a
reexamination requirement or denial of the issuance of permits or
requiring issuance of permits with conditions, and reasonable
investigative costs.
The board shall consider five different elements in imposing
these sanctions: Number one, the gravity of the violation; second, the
impact of the violation; third, any actions taken by the violator to
correct the violations; fourth, any previous violations committed; and
fifth, any other evidence presented at the hearing by the parties
relevant to the sanction that's appropriate for the case, given its nature.
The board also has to issue a recommended penalty to the State
Construction Industry Licensing Board.
I believe that the county and the respondents have evidence to
present on the sanctions that they recommend.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, and those sanctions? What is the
recommendation?
Page 108
1611/\6
August 19,2009
MR. OSSORlO: For the record, Mike Ossorio, Collier County
Contactor License, pertaining to this case about my recommendations.
Marco Marine Construction's on probation. Mr. Schuck is here
on his own free will. Mr. Donald Ricci understands the issues at hand.
They attempted to repay the money to the association of$14,300,
without any stipulation from our office pertaining to revocation of
somebody's license.
I recommend that we find him in violation, of course. $7,000
penalty for each finding of fact; one for Mr. Ricci and one for Mr.
Schuck. $1,500 for licensing investigation fees by Mr. Schuck and to
Mr. Ricci.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Each?
MR. OSSORlO: Each. Since there are two findings.
And to be continued to be put on probation due to the fact that
he's trying to make restitution. Ifwe suspend or pull his building
permit pulling privileges and we revoke his license, I believe these
homeowners at these associations would be adversely affected by it.
Since Mr. Ricci's (sic) here in his free will, he understands the
clarity and the issues at hand. And we continue to put him on
probation, but he needs to go ahead and take the trades test again for
marine contracting, both Mr. Ricci and Mr. Schuck, within six
months. And to continue his probation for one more year for both
parties.
MR. HORN: What about business law testing?
MR. OSSORlO: Mr. Schuck needs to take the business
procedure test. He has so many more months. I think he has till --
MR. SCHUCK: January 21st.
MR. OSSORIO: January 21st. The board has already ordered
Mr. Schuck to go ahead and take a business procedure test. So not
only that he has to take the business and procedure test, Mr. Ricci and
Mr. Schuck needs to take the trades test. If neither of them take the
trades test within one-year period oftoday, they should automatically
Page 109
Augul Q, b619 A 6 ~
have their license revoked.
In other words, if Mr. Ricci took -- if Mr. Schuck took the trades
test within six months, he would be okay. If Mr. Ricci elected not to
take it within 12 months, his license would be automatically revoked.
That's my recommendation.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, on the penalty phases of the
$7,000 penalty for each party at $7,000 per offense or per--
MR. NEALE: Well, there's only one count.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Are we talking about--
MR. OSSORlO: There's only one.
MR. L YKOS: One count.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Each count -- each person, though.
MR. NEALE: Right.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay.
MR. L YKOS: In the stipulation agreement, item number four
says the respondent realizes that there are other complainants that
require restitution. What are those other complainants and what are the
dollar amounts; do you know?
MR. OSSORIO: There are some -- we do have some preliminary
investigation on hand. And I believe Mr. Schuck is in communication
with those individuals. I'm not at liberty to go ahead and give you any
more information on that, other than that we could be back in front of
the board in October. I don't think we will be, hopefully, but we
might.
But there are some respondents out there that are coming
forward with the same MO, or same issue. But --
MR. L YKOS: Different client?
MR. OSSORIO: Same association.
MR. L YKOS: Same MO but different client or same
association?
MR. OSSORIO: Same association.
Mr. Carr is the association manager through two through nine.
Page 11 0
1611. A6
Augusti9,2009
He doesn't really manage the other association in that condominium
association, but there are some filtering in. And we're taking those
complaints. But we're not at that stage yet, so --
MR. L YKOS: I -- it seems like you've given this a lot of thought
in terms of what the disciplinary action should be. It's pretty
comprehensive.
And your first statement was that we need to keep him in
business so that he can afford to pay restitution. I have a serious
concern that we're setting up more people to be taken advantage of.
And I don't like to put the people at risk of not getting their restitution,
but is our responsibility to Marco Marine's previous clients that are
seeking restitution or is our responsibility to any future clients that
may be taken advantage of and the situation could be worse? So I
have that concern and I want to put that on the table.
MR. OSSORlO: Well, that is a good point, Mr. Lykos. And you
might want to hear from the respondents, or Mr. Carr, the association
manager, and how he feels about Marco Marine about revocating his
license or putting him on probation. So he is -- because they are the
affected party.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is he present today?
MR. OSSORlO: He is present.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Does the county want to call him as a
witness? We'd have to reopen the public hearing.
MR. OSSORlO: No.
MR. NEALE: You don't have to reopen the public hearing. This
is evidence as to sanctions, not as to guilt or --
MR. OSSORlO: That is up to the board ifthey want to hear him
or not. I know what he wants. He wants his money. And he doesn't -- I
don't think he wants to take Marco Marine's license away but, you
know, that's not really up to him, but that's how he feels. He can
elaborate more on that, I'm not sure.
MR. L YKOS: I understand that that -- those intentions are
Page 111
AUlu~ 1'~, loo~ 6 j
self-serving, or at least on the surface would appear to be. That's one
comment.
Just because we don't take their license away doesn't mean that
they can afford to pay the restitution. There's -- they're more likely to
pay it if they have their license or are able to continue to work, but it
doesn't mean it necessarily will happen.
MR. OSSORIO: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think permit privileges should be pulled
at this time also.
MR. NEALE: Well, one --
MR. L YKOS: Well, I haven't gotten that far yet. I'm just putting
out on the table what my issues are or what my concerns are so that
we can address them all independently.
MR. NEALE: One point to note for the board. Just that both of
these gentlemen are operating on probation at this point. And that the
board has, for at least the period until January of next year the ability
to pull them back in at any time, should they commit any other
violations.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It seems like a pattern. I mean, they were
here what, five, six months ago?
MR. NEALE: January.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And now we're back on the same boat
again. And we gave him the probation the first time with the
stipulation.
Like Mr. Lykos said, now where's our responsibility lie?
Mr. White?
MR. WHITE: Although I wasn't present in January, I certainly
can recognize that perhaps it's because of the fact that they're on
probation that folks in Sunset Cay looked into this. Especially when
additional compensation was requested.
But that aside, the staffhas made a recommendation as to what
they feel appropriate penalties and cost of prosecution are.
Page 112
6 I' A 6 ~
AuguJ19, 2~1
And I would just like to know from both the respondent and
from Mr. Carr if they would be in agreement with those penalties and
cost of prosecution as something sufficient. So I --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Karen?
MS. CLEMENTS: Mr. Joslin, I just want to put in, these permits
were pulled last December. So it's not like something that was just
recently done.
MR. SCHUCK: May I interject something?
MR. WHITE: Yeah, just wondering if what your -- are you
agreeable ifthat were to be the penalties that would be imposed?
MR. SCHUCK: Yeah, I'd like to keep our license.
And this is not -- this situation wasn't work oriented. It was
trying to get their permits for their floating docks. And what
happened, we permitted one dock and the permit price was around 400
bucks. So the next dock we went to do, they came back and said it's
going to be like $1,250. The original contract was for 950. So we
thought it was $1,250 plus the 500. And that's when we went back and
asked for the extra money, in which it didn't turn out to be.
So we didn't try to dupe these people. And usually -- and when
you're doing work for a permit, this doesn't come up like that. Well,
when I first started this, I went and asked Collier County what they
would charge for permitting and that's how --
MR. WHITE: I understand. But you heard what the staffhas
recommended.
MR. SCHUCK: Yes. I agree to that, yes.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And you're speaking on Mr. --
MR. SCHUCK: Ricci's behalf, that's correct.
MR. WHITE: -- as well?
And I guess we'll get to Mr. Carr perhaps at some point as to
whether he thinks that that's a penalty that is sufficient or not.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Carr, be sworn in, please.
(Mr. Carr was duly sworn.)
Page 113
AuJS~lJ, ~09 A 6 '
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Carr, you've heard this stipulation,
and I assume you've been involved in it. Do you agree to the
stipulation and realize what penalties staff has asked for?
MR. CARR: Yes.
I would like to add that the villas really have no opinion on
taking Marco Marine's license. You know, our goal was to recuperate
what we felt was an unfair charge. And that's being done with the
agreement that Mr. Schuck and the other gentleman agreed to.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So in no way there was any kind of a
work ethic problem or anything that was done improperly, it was just
simply a matter --
MR. CARR: I didn't say that. But the general consensus of the
presidents of these associations was try to recuperate the money, and
was not specifically to try to take their license, no.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos?
MR. L YKOS: Two comments. This is all nice that we got a
recommendation and the respondent agrees to it and everybody feels
good. There's a letter written by the respondent's company that says
the reason the costs are higher is because the permits are after the fact
and it's four times the cost, okay? So that was one deception on the
respondent's part.
These permit receipts have been altered. I mean, there's two
different situations when the respondent and Marco Marine was being
deceptive and dishonest in invoicing the client.
If there's some misunderstanding about how much permit fees
were, that's not the same thing as altering permit documents and then
sending a letter to try to justify how much the fees were after the fact.
That's completely different than a misunderstanding about how the
fees were calculated.
So a company that was on probation sent a letter that was
dishonest about why the fees were raised from what was originally
anticipated, and then altered the receipts to support that invoice.
Page 114
161" 1/~6
August 19,2009
If you're happy with $7,000, then we should quadruple it or
make it 10 times that amount. This should be painful for you, not
agreeable for you. This is egregious, sir. This is egregious.
MR. SCHUCK: Me standing here is enough.
MR. L YKOS: Well, I don't think it is.
MR. SCHUCK: Yeah, I do.
MR. L YKOS: I don't --
MR. SCHUCK: I feel ashamed of what we did, Mr. Lykos.
MR. L YKOS: The fact that you --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, okay, whoa, whoa.
MR. L YKOS: -- can keep your license and continue to operate
and perhaps put more homeowners or more businesses at risk.
MR. SCHUCK: We're not going to take anybody's money.
MR. L YKOS: Yeah, I bet you said that in January.
MR. SCHUCK: It wasn't our intention, sir. It was not our
intention. You don't know me from Adam.
MR. L YKOS: I don't like the fact that everybody's comfortable
with the fact that you sent out a letter that lied about why the costs
were higher, and then you falsified public records to justify the
mcreases.
MR. SCHUCK: I agreed to that. You don't think me standing
here is enough punishment of what's going on?
MR. L YKOS: No, I don't think it's enough.
MR. SCHUCK: Well, you don't know me very well, Mr. Lykos.
MR. L YKOS: Well, I know about how you conduct your
business.
MR. SCHUCK: We've been in business for 30 years. I don't
think --
MR. L YKOS: But I do know how --
MR. SCHUCK: -- there was a person complained against us.
MR. L YKOS: -- you conduct your business.
MR. SCHUCK: No, that isn't. You don't know us.
Page 115
1611 A6
August 1"9,2009
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, that's enough. Okay.
MR. WHITE: I'd just point out, Mr. Chairman that --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. White.
MR. WHITE: -- Count I starts out with the word falsifying,
okay? So in my reading through the materials and recognizing that
there were misrepresentations and falsification of documents, whether
it was the letter that was sent to the condo association and whether it
was based upon misrepresented facts as to the idea that they were
somehow four times the fees, I don't know the degree of complicity
that Mr. Schuck or Mr. Ricci have, but I know they're standing here
today and taking responsibility for it.
I'm also looking at what the staff is telling me they think are
their costs of prosecution and what they think a penalty that's
appropriate to get the message across is.
Now, is some comment from the board so that the respondents
understand the sentiments of the board members appropriate?
Absolutely. But I do not believe that simply because we had an
agreement from Mr. Carr and Mr. Schuck and from the staff as to
what the recommendation of staff as being appropriate is somehow
itself inappropriate. I think that it makes sense.
And the whole point of it here to me is to come to a fair and
reasonable conclusion. I think the fact that they admitted to the guilt
probably to me goes a long way in this case to somebody recognizing
that they have a problem.
The things I'm concerned about and would want to know that
this business is doing is to make sure that internally it is operating in a
manner so that these things cannot happen again. They were either
done with this gentleman's knowledge or at his direction, or he was
responsible for them. I don't know. But what I do know is that he has
stood up here and said he's taking responsibility for it.
So we will leave it to him as to whether there will be any further
complaints, whether there are (sic) in fact restitution made over the
Page 116
Augul ~, ~o~ A 6
next coming months, and whether the other undesignated respondents
are themselves going to be treated fairly. If anyone of those things
don't go the way they're projected to go, I'm pretty sure that I'm going
to be prepared to vote to take away all of their privileges as far as
permit pulling go. But that isn't today's case.
So I'm comfortable with where we are today, even though I don't
like to see this kind of a business entity operating in this county . It's
scary. There's something internally in the operation ofthis business
that is not tight enough. And so I'm hoping that between the trade
school -- or between the trade exam and the business and law, the
things that are necessary as internal controls are going to be put in
place.
I don't know what employees may have been responsible and
whether they were disciplined or not, but those are things that have to
do with how you operate your business, not with whether we give you
a license or not. We've already put your license on probation, we've
extended it an additional year. So whether we're going to in fact be
doing our jobs and making sure that others can't be harmed, I feel
comfortable with.
I'm not going to put Mr. Carr and the association people in a
position where by pulling permit pulling privileges today we assure
that the restitution more likely than not will not be paid.
So far, so good.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, go ahead.
MR. HORN: Mr. Chair, I've got to ask, in the case in January
where the company was found guilty where we had the penalty phase,
do we have a copy of that? Because on certain occasions we have had
terms of probation where if another violation occurs it's automatically
revoked, all their rights.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Neale? See if it's not in there.
MR. NEALE: The terms in the order were that -- and this is Mr.
Schuck's order specifically, that the first term, number one, probation
Page 11 7
August 11. ~Jd 1 A 6
for a period of 12 months whereby the respondent will perform his
contracting activities under the supervision of the board. During which
time, should the respondent violate the ordinance in any respect, his
license will be immediately suspended and a hearing on the
suspension and violation shall be held at the next regularly scheduled
board hearing.
Two different fines, administrative costs and then the
requirement to take and pass with a minimum grade of 75 percent the
business and law examination within the probationary period.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. LANTZ: I don't know if it's within the power of the board,
but I would like to see both of them have to take classes on business
ethics at their expense. I would like to see 20 hours per person. I know
that seems excessive, but I think it's well fit for this. I don't know if we
have the power to stipulate that.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, we can add that in. But right now
the order that Mr. Neale just read is I think an eye opener. Because
this was another case that was here in January, and the board made it
clear cut then, if there were any other violations that came before the
board, that the license would be suspended. Is that the way I'm reading
it or you're explaining it?
MR. NEALE: That's what it says.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Now, we do have the jurisdiction
to be able to change that, or not?
MR. WHITE: Well, I'd just ask, Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Neale
could tell us whether we were supposed to take some additional action
relative to that as suspension for the January order, or is it something
that was in a sense, quote, automatic, self-executed. And whether in
fact the same is also the case on the order for Mr. Ricci.
MR. NEALE: The way I would interpret the order as having
been is that should they violate it, the license is immediately
suspended. Self-actuated.
Page 118
16 i 1 A6
August 19,2009
MR. WHITE: So as of our finding today of the violation of
Count I to each of these gentlemen, their licenses are presently
suspended.
MR. NEALE: Right. And then a hearing on the suspension
violation shall be held at the next regularly scheduled board meeting.
Now, I think the board could take that to mean that this would be
that scheduled board hearing.
MR. WHITE: I agree.
MR. NEALE: But as of the finding that they were in violation,
his license is suspended.
MR. WHITE: And is the same true for Mr. Ricci?
MR. NEALE: Same is true for Mr. Ricci. Exact same language
in both orders.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Now, do we have any power to accept
the county's stipulation agreement?
MR. NEALE: Well, what you've got is then -- what this is, is the
hearing on that suspension and that violation are being held. So you
are now essentially -- this part of your sanction deliberation is whether
that suspension is to stand or whether you are to waive that
suspension, create a new probationary period for them, or however
you're going to decide.
But part of the hearing on sanctions right now is whether that
suspension is going to stand.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the staff were
aware of the prior order from January or not. And I'd like to have their
input, if it's okay to request that. On the suspension in particular.
MR. OSSORlO: I did not know that ifhe violated -- my
assumption was is that only the board can decide ifhe's guilty or not.
If we charged him with a charge and we brought him and we found
him in violation, he would be suspended automatically. Not
automatically just because a consumer made a complaint against him.
I would personally suspend him.
Page 119
August 19~ob91 A 6
MR. NEALE: What it says specifically, and that's -- as I said,
when the board found him in violation, he's suspended.
MR. OSSORlO: Yes.
MR. WHITE: And what is your recommendation, if any, with
respect to length of the suspension and if in fact you feel it ought to be
waived?
MR. OSSORIO: I have no comment on him being suspended.
That's really up to the licensing board. I think that we can suspend him
from maybe just working in Marco Island only, not working in the
City of Naples. There's a variety of different suspensions you can do.
MR. WHITE: I understand.
MR. OSSORlO: And so that's really up to the board. I know that
he's suspended as we speak now.
My recommendation stands what I just said to you before.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And the stipulation that we put in the last
order stipulates that he is right now suspended --
MR. OSSORlO: He is suspended.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- because he's been found guilty.
MR. OSSORlO: He is suspended.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Now we can make a ruling on what the
suspension -- or how long or how we're --
MR. NEALE: You can have the suspension --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- going to dictate that suspension.
MR. NEALE: You can have the suspension be valid until --
MR. WHITE: Fines are paid.
MR. NEALE: -- fines are paid. You can have it be valid until,
you know, two minutes from now or until you finalize the sanctions.
The length of suspension is up to the board's decision.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead, Mr. Lykos.
MR. L YKOS: Were there any fines invoked at the last -- the
hearing in January?
MR. NEALE: Yes, there were.
Page 120
1611 A6 1
August19,2009
MR. L YKOS: What were those fines?
MR. NEALE: As to Mr. Schuck, a fine of $1 ,500 to be paid
within 60 days, another fine of $5,000 for the fine, total of $6,500 in
administrative costs, and investigative cost of $500. So a total of
$7,000 to be paid. And those were to have been paid by March 21st.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Have they been paid?
MR. OSSORIO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: They have been paid.
MR. L YKOS: Michael, in wrote this down right, your
recommendation was for $7,000 each in terms of a fine. Did you come
up with that number because the amount in question was 14,000?
MR. OSSORIO: Yes.
MR. L YKOS: Maybe it ought to be 14,000 each.
MR. OSSORIO: I believe that the penalty can only be 10,000.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right, maximum 10.
MR. NEALE: 10,000 fine is max per violation.
MR. LANTZ: Does that include administrative costs?
MR. NEALE: No, that's just the fine. Fine is 10,000, max
restitution is whatever's proven, legal and administrative costs or
whatever the staff states that they are.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Now, all the problems that are in
question that are going to be possibly coming before us, going by what
you're talking about, the other rest of the people that are in this
particular development or the owner, there may be more cases that are
going to be coming before us or possibly more people that are in the
same situation?
MR. OSSORIO: You have to ask Mr. Schuck that question.
MR. SCHUCK: I've talked to both parties, and they'll be paid
within two weeks.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: These are the ones that are--
MR. SCHUCK: Are not on the --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- not on this --
Page 121
161"1 A6
August 19, 201J9
MR. SCHUCK: Right. They weren't represented by Resort
Management. One was represented by themselves. Another was
Cardinal Management.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So what you're saying then is that after
this is completed and whatever happens here now today, you should
have no more issues that are going to come before us and the board for
anything else that's gone on with Marco Marine Construction?
MR. SCHUCK: No. I mean, this was just permitting. It had
nothing to do with work or anything. I mean, this was --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No, Mr. Schuck, you're missing the boat.
MR. SCHUCK: No, I understand --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: This is how you run your business.
MR. SCHUCK: Right, I understand. I won't be before you again.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I hope not.
MR. SCHUCK: Neither do 1. I don't like standing up here.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, any other discussion, or do we
need to make findings here?
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chair, I'd like to proffer a motion.
Notwithstanding the staffs recommendation and the acquiescence on
the part of respondent and Mr. Carr, I'd like to move that as to each,
Mr. Schuck and Mr. Ricci, that a fine of$IO,OOO be imposed, that
costs of prosecution each in the amount of $1 ,500 be imposed, and
that the additional tests be taken within six months as to trade for Mr.
Schuck, as to 12 months for Mr. Ricci, and by -- we already have the
business and law to January 21st, 2010.
Additionally, that one additional year be added to the length of
probation for the licensees in this business, and that the permit pulling
privileges remain suspended from today forward until such time as the
fines and cost of prosecution are paid in full. And that in no case will
it be more than 60 days that those dollar amounts be paid.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Paid within 60 days, the total amount?
MR. WHITE: Yes.
Page 122
Augustl~260J A 6 ~
And if they choose to pay them sooner, then the suspension is
lifted. If they don't, then they're suspended for at least 60 days.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You want to restrict him to a suspension
of only Marco Island and take him out of the City of Naples and
Collier County areas?
MR. WHITE: Where was the prior work done for the --
MR. SCHUCK: Sunset Cay, Port of the Islands. Collier County.
MR. WHITE: So it's in unincorporated. This is unincorporated,
the other was Marco.
I'd be amenable to any second that would offer a geographic
limitation of the suspension.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'll second the motion. It is a motion?
MR. WHITE: It is.
MR. OSSORlO: Mr. White, you said 60 days :from--
MR. WHITE: Today's date.
MR. OSSORlO: Ifhe doesn't pay within 60 days, we schedule a
licensing board hearing again. We don't automatically take him off
suspension if he doesn't pay.
MR. WHITE: Correct. With that point, we would probably I
would imagine revoke.
MR. OSSORlO: All right. No, I got it.
MR. WHITE: And does the second wish to make any limitation
on the scope ofthis suspension to a particular area of the county?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think I would like to see it happen and
take out City of Naples and take out pretty much Collier County. But
ifthat particular area is in part of Collier County, then that's not going
to work.
MR. WHITE: You've got, as far as I understand it, City of
Everglades -- you've got Everglades City, excuse me, the City of
Marco Island and City of Naples and everything else is the
unincorporated county.
MR. L YKOS: So you're trying to decide which homeowners and
Page 123
Auglt~9! 2do9 A 61
which businesses he can take advantage of?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, we're trying to put him into a little
bundle right there where we can keep him right in one location. I don't
think it's going to help us to totally take him out ofthe picture;
otherwise the people that may be coming before us here may not. He's
got 60 days to prove it, in a sense, or his license I'm sure will be
revoked. I don't think this board's going to question it.
So I'm just trying to contain him a little bit so he doesn't go to
the City of Naples and all over the place.
MR. LANTZ: As the motion stands, he's suspended. He can't do
work in either of them --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Until he pays the fines.
MR. LANTZ: -- until he pays the fine.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Until he pays the fines.
MR. WHITE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That could happen tomorrow.
MR. WHITE: Correct. He's got the key to his own lock.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead.
MR. BOYD: Well, I'd also add that he pays the restitution.
Because even though we have this agreement, we have --
MR. WHITE: If I may comment on that, Mr. Chairman?
My understanding from the stipulation is that there is a time line
specified already. And that if those milestones aren't met that we're
going to have them back in front of us again. And I think that to me,
similar to the other issue, would probably lead to revocation.
MR. BOYD: The other thing I would like to question is Mr.
Schuck is at least here, he's shown remorse, he seems to be the one
driving this whole attempt to provide restitution and everything. I'd
like to keep Mr. Ricci on suspension until he appears before us.
Is he active in the business?
MR. SCHUCK: He's retired.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, I'll remove City of Naples and City
Page 124
1611 'i~16
August 19,2009
of Everglades out of the motion, and the rest I'll leave in for the
moment.
MR. WHITE: So the effect would be that he would be
suspended in --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Suspended totally in the City of Marco --
I mean City of Naples and City of Everglades City.
MR. WHITE: But elsewhere --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Elsewhere operational. As long as his
fine is paid within 60 days. After that, if it's not paid, then like you
said --
MR. WHITE: We'll be back.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- we'll be back.
MR. WHITE: I accept that amendment to the motion.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We have motion and a second. All in
favor, signify by saying aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed?
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's 6-1?
MR. NEALE: 5-1.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: 5-1. Motion carries, 5-1.
MR. NEALE: We do need one --
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Schuck, do you want to remain for
the reading of this, just so you understand all the terminology within
't?
I .
MR. NEALE: We do need one further thing, which is a motion
Page 125
16 1'1 A6
August 19,2009
for any action by the state board.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay.
MR. NEALE: You have the option of no further action.
MR. L YKOS: I make a motion that we don't make any
recommendations to the state.
MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Second. Motion and a second to keep the
state out of the picture at the moment.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. LYKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries.
All right. In the Case No. 2009-07, License No. 26439 and
13520, Board of County Commissioners versus James G. Schuck and
Donald P. Ricci, Sr., d/b/a Marco Marine Construction, Inc.
Administrative complaint and the order. This cause came on or
before the Contractors Licensing Board on August 19th, 2009 for
consideration of administrative complaint filed against James G.
Schuck and Donald P. Ricci, Sr. Service ofthe complaint was made
by certified mail, personal delivery or publication in accordance with
Collier County ordinances 90-105, as amended.
Board having heard testimony under oath received evidence and
heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters thereupon issues
its findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of the board as
follows: That James G. Schuck and Donald P. Ricci, Sr. is the holder
of record of Certificate of Competency number 26439 and 13520.
Page 126
16 1!1 tl 6
August 19,2009
That the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,
is the complainant in this matter. That the board has jurisdiction of the
person of the respondent, and that James G. Schuck only was
represented at the public hearing and was not represented by counsel
and was given authority by Donald P. Ricci, Sr. to speak on his behalf.
All notices required by Collier County Ordinance No. 90-105, as
amended, have been properly issued and were personally delivered.
Respondent acted in a manner that is in violation of Collier
County ordinances and is one of who committed the act. The
allegations of fact as set forth in the administrative complaint as to
Count I, Section No. 4.1.22, falsifying or misrepresenting any material
fact to another person with the intent or for the purpose of engaging in
the contracting business, providing materials or services or soliciting
business for an employer as a contractor or as an employee, regardless
of any financial consideration.
They are to be found and supported by evidence presented at this
hearing.
Conclusions of law alleged and set forth in the administrative
complaint as to Count I, Section 4.1.22 are approved, adopted and
incorporated herein to wit: The respondent violated Section No. 4.1.22
of Collier County Ordinance 91-105, as amended, in the performance
of his contracting business in Collier County by acting in violation of
sections set out in the administrative complaint with particularity.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law
and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes,
and Collier County Ordinance No. 90-105, as amended, by a vote of
five to one -- I'm sorry five in favor and one opposed as a majority
vote of the board members present, respondent has been found in
violation set above.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. WHITE: I think the finding of violation was 6-0.
Page 127
August ~~oh91 A 6 ,~
MR. NEALE: The violation was 6-0.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Six to zero. I'm sorry, I amend that to --
it was amended by a vote of six in favor and zero opposed, a majority
vote of the board members present. Respondent has been found in
violation and set out above.
Further, it is ordered by a vote of five in favor and one opposed,
a majority vote ofthe board members present at the following
disciplinary sanction and related order are hereby imposed upon the
holder of contractor Certificate License No. 26439 and 13520. That
Marco Marine Construction, Inc. and James G. Schuck and Donald P.
Ricci, Sr. will be penalized or to be paid civil penalties in the amount
of$lO,OOO to each party, $1,500 investigative costs per person, Mr.
Ricci and Mr. Schuck. Both are placed on probation for one year
additional period from today's date. Let's see. Mr. Ricci has to take a
trades test within 12 months, and Mr. Schuck has to take a trades test
within a six-month period.
And the license is now suspended and will be suspended until
the restitution has been paid within 60 days. If not paid within 60
days, then it will become (sic) back before this board.
MR. WHITE: I believe it was, Mr. Chairman, not the restitution
but the fines and cost of prosecution.
MR. NEALE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry, the fines and cost of
prosecution will be paid within 60 days.
And also, the suspension will remove Naples -- City of Naples
and the City of Everglades City from permit pulling privileges until
the suspension has been paid.
Anything further I missed?
MR. WHITE: I just had a question as to the length of time that
the suspension of one year operates from. I believe it's from the end of
the prior --
MR. NEALE: End of the prior suspension, right.
Page 128
6 "I
August ~, 2009
A6
MR. WHITE: But not from today's date.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Not from today's date? From the prior
suspension, which is when? When is that?
MR. NEALE: Well, the prior suspension ends January 21st,
2010. So this tacks another year onto that.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. So it will go till January 1st of
2011.
MR. NEALE: Right.
MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Joslin, I think you said suspension. I
mean till the time that the fines and the costs are paid.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. Suspended until the fines and the
costs are paid, within 60 days.
That's the order of the board.
All right, the last case before us, Case No. 2009-09, Robert
Gonzalez-Fortan. Are you present?
MR. GONZALEZ-FORTAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Please be sworn in, please.
(Mr. Gonzalez-Fortan and Mr. Ganguli were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, you've heard the method of how
we're going to proceed with this, right, earlier?
MR. GONZALEZ: I need to interpret. I speak English, but not
100 percent. Is it possible?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure. State your name and be sworn in,
please.
MR. BUSTO: Rafael Busto.
THE COURT REPORTER: Spell your last name, please.
MR. BUSTO: B-U-S- T -0.
(Mr. Busto was duly sworn to interpret the following testimony.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I'm going to open the Case No.
2009-09, and License No. 27736, Board of County Commissioners
versus Robert Gonzalez, d/b/a Master Gutters, Inc.
You've been charged with Count I, 4.1.6, disregards or violates
Page 129
16 1 \1 A 6 ;
August 19,2009
the performance of his contracting business in Collier County in any
of the building, safety, health and insurance Workmen's Compensation
laws of the State of Florida, ordinances of this county. Are you aware
of this?
MR. GONZALEZ-FORTAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'll open it with county presenting the
case, please, your opening statements.
MR. GANGULI: Mr. Joslin, this is Supervisor Ossorio's case.
He knows how nauseating he can be when he stands and speaks
excessively, so he staffed it out to me to present to you.
I'm going to read the summary into the record. And if you have
any questions at that point I will call him as a witness and he can
answer them.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay.
MR. GANGULI: Case 2009-09, County Commissioners versus
Roberto Gonzalez doing business as Master Gutters, Incorporated.
On June 24th, 2009, Collier County Contractor Licensing
Supervisor Michael Ossorio observed three employees of Master
Gutter, Incorporated performing work on the exterior soffit of a
building located at 1100 Swallow Avenue on Marco Island, Florida,
34145.
Master Gutters, Inc., Certificate No. 27736 is an active
aluminum contractor but has a workers' compo exemption on file for
only the qualifier of the company, Roberto Gonzalez.
Mr. Ossorio met with the qualifier at the contractors licensing
office where a sworn statement was obtained from Mr. Gonzalez
where he acknowledged having failed to provide the necessary
Workers' Compensation insurance coverage for his employees at this
job site.
This activity construes a violation of Florida State Statute
440.10, which outlines employer responsibilities for securing and
maintaining compensation coverage for workers. And this
Page 130
1611 A6
August 19,200'9
consequently is a violation of Collier County Ordinance 2006-46,
Section 4.1.6, whereby the respondent disregards or violates in the
performance of his contracting business in Collier County any of the
building/safety/health/insurance or Workers' Compensation laws of
the State of Florida or ordinances of this county.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, Mr. Gonzalez, would you like
to present an opening statement regarding this charge?
MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Chairman, could we move the evidence
packet into -- move the packet into evidence?
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, we certainly can.
I need a motion to put the Case No. 2009-09 into evidence.
MR. BOYD: So moved, Boyd.
MR. WHITE: Second.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We have a motion and a second.
All in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries 6-0.
Continue, please.
MR. BUSTO: What he just stated was correct. Actually, he
didn't know about the exempt. Now he did have the other employers
except now. He didn't know that part, really. He only had himself.
And actually was one of the jobs that he got that he couldn't do
himself. That's honestly.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: He didn't know about having an
exemption form, is what you're asking -- saying?
Page 131
16 I l' A 6
August 19,2009
MR. BUSTO: No, no, he had exempt himself, but didn't know
he couldn't add others for the company, officers, which they are now.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: They are now officers.
MR. BUSTO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, that's the gist of it?
MR. BUSTO: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Were you actually on the job without
Workmen's Compo insurance, doing the job?
MR. BUSTO: Yes, they were there.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So you're -- under your testimony now
under oath you're admitting that as far as Count 4.1.6 goes you are
guilty?
MR. BUSTO: Yeah, he signed an affidavit.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Turn back to Mr. Ganguli or Mr.
Ossorio. You want to present the rest of the case? There's a lot more to
say, but --
(Mr. Ossorio was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Continue.
MR. OSSORIO: Mike Ossorio, Collier County Contractor
Licensing Supervisor.
On June 24th, I did witness Master Gutters. I saw their trucks
and it basically said Master Gutters, Incorporated, Licensed and
Insured.
This was a commercial building. There were condominiums 50,
60 feet up in height, a huge ladder up there, three individuals working
on the job site with no harnesses. Appeared to be a safety issue, so I
did stop.
I conducted an interview. I talked with three individuals. They
said they worked for this gentleman, Mr. Gonzalez.
I looked through our records and found out that Mr. Gonzalez
has a workers' compo exemption and there is no policy.
At that time I called Mr. Gonzalez. He did meet me on the site. I
Page 132
16 11 A 6
August 19,2009
issued a stop work order and advised him to stop by the office that day
to sign his notice for the hearing and also take a statement.
And then I'll read the statement into record. Since it's my
handwriting, you probably couldn't read it anyway.
Roberto Gonzalez, regarding misconduct. I am a qualifier of
Master Gutters, Incorporated. On June 24th, 2009, my company, noted
above, was working on an exterior soffit throughout the building.
Mike Ossorio from the contractor licensing office issued a stop work
order for disregarding the workers' compensation laws. I realize that I
had three employees without proper coverage pursuant to Statute 440.
I also realize that I put this condo and my employees at risk. Signed
the date, 24th of June, 2008 -- 2009.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Can you really read that?
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah. Just like your handwriting, right?
MR. L YKOS: Question, Mr. Ossorio. The three employees you
saw working, Mr. Gonzalez was not one of the three--
MR. OSSORIO: That's correct.
MR. L YKOS: -- working in the building?
MR. OSSORIO: That was not one of the three. Mr. Gonzalez
met me on the site after I issued the stop work order. The three
employees, from my notes, were Sergio Gonzalez, Roberto Gonzalez
and Lewis Gonzalez. They could be relatives, I'm not too sure. I think
one ofthem might be.
Subsequent to that, since then, the 24th I issued a signed
statement. Mr. Gonzalez did come in and said he's going to put them
on a leasing company payroll service. I did not get that information. I
don't know if he actually finished the job, but there's a stop work
order. I'm assuming that the contractor that hired him completed the
job. But he did not complete the job.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So he was acting as a subcontractor?
MR. OSSORIO: He was a sub on the job.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So just to finish Mr. Lykos's question,
Page 133
Augush ~ Jool A 6
I'm sure he's going to say the same thing, that Mr. Gonzalez was not
on the job but there were three other people on the job? Which would
be a total of four in the corporation, right?
MR. OSSORIO: Yes, you can have up to three people of your
corporation, as long as they have 10 percent of the ownership of the
company.
That wasn't the case here. These individuals had shirts that said
Master Gutters on it, and they were clearly acting as an employee, not
as a subcontractor.
And then Mr. Gonzalez came into that office the same day, after
I met him on the job site. He did acknowledge that those are my
employees. It was very busy and basically that work has been slow. I
had my exemption, I really only worked on -- myself but I got an
opportunity to do this big job and so therefore I took that risk. And I
had hired my brother, my cousin and other people to work on this
50-foot, you know, community and put them at risk with no coverage.
So this is why we're here today.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Did you have a question, Mr. Lykos?
MR. L YKOS: Mr. Gonzalez, there was a stop work order issued
and your crew was removed from the job site in question; is that
correct?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yeah, that's correct.
MR. L YKOS: And did your company go back and complete the
project?
MR. GONZALEZ-FORTAN: Yeah, the other day--
THE COURT REPORTER: Please speak one at a time and in
the microphone.
MR. GONZALEZ-FORTAN: On the other day I don't have
information for the labor office. Michael talk to me, go for labor office
and pay. The other day I don't have this information, no. And the other
day go for labor office, four of the guys name and pay for labor office
and finish the job.
Page 134
AugUst~ ~ 2!OJ A 6 '
MR. OSSORIO: I believe that's true. I'm not sure, but I know he
did come back and we talked about the fact-finding labor people and
he was going to put them on payroll.
And I believe in fact that he did. So that wasn't the question. The
question is that he had coverage -- he didn't have coverage on the three
individuals, and it was clearly a life/safety issue out there.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Were they on ladders, by chance?
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, these ladders were 50 feet.
MR. GONZALEZ-FORTAN: It's 30 feet, 38 feet.
MR. OSSORIO: This is why I have these (indicating.) They're
large ladders, 35, 40, 50 feet, whatever, they were pretty well up there.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, doesn't leave us a whole lot here
to question now that you've already pretty well admitted I guess that
you are definitely guilty on the job.
Any other questions from the board members?
MR. LANTZ: I'm just curious, how are you paying the people?
Did you pay payroll taxes or just pay them cash?
MR. GONZALEZ-FORTAN: The people -- these people, one is
my son and the other is my brother. I pay for check, never paid cash.
Well, this job is for three, four days of bidding and the second day
only working one day. And the other time I work only until gutters,
cleaning. For one years and a half, no work. And this year maybe
work 30 days for seven months. This is cusable (phonetic). You know,
look at the opportunity and go for the license company, and I need the
down payment, 2,000 bucks, I don't have it for two, three days. And
the other information, the labor office, Michael talk to me.
You know, I don't have it. Right now working -- the last month
working one day and this month two days. It's just cusable (phonetic),
you know.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. Michael, you have anything
else to add in this in rebuttal or any more questions before I -- I don't
think we need to hear too much more. We'll probably close the public
Page 135
16111 A6
Augustt9,200if
hearing, if not.
MR. OSSORIO: No.
MR. L YKOS: Move to close the public hearing, Lykos.
MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion to close the public hearing and a
motion and a second.
All in favor, signifY by saying aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. LYKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries 6-0.
All right. Discussion here, gentlemen.
MR. NEALE: This is another situation where the respondent
stipulated to the charge. So in essence the board needs to just accept
the stipulation, accept the affidavit as presented and find him in
violation, and then find sanctions.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. We need a motion.
MR. WHITE: Motion to find violation in Case 2009-09 of Count
I, Section 4.1.6, based upon the sworn statement as a stipulation by the
respondent.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion, I need a second.
MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion and a second.
All in favor, signifY by saying aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
Page 136
16 'f!r A 6
August 19,2009
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. LYKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. Okay.
MR. NEALE: Maybe the board can recall from not that long ago
what the sanctions are, what the tests are as to the sanctions and
potentially go to the county staff to see what they recommend.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Does staff have a recommendation on
penalty phase?
MR. OSSORIO: I do. One-year probation. Mr. Gonzalez must
take the business procedure test within 12 months in that probationary
period. $1,000 fine to be paid within 60 days. And $258 in
investigation costs.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: 260.
MR. OSSORIO: 258.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: 258.
MR. OSSORIO: Paid within 60 days.
MR. LANTZ: I move we accept the staffs recommendation.
MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second to accept the
county's recommendations for penalty.
All signifY by saying aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Discussion? Sorry. Go ahead.
MR. L YKOS: Mr. Neale, we've had some prior cases with
Page 137
161fl 1\6
August 19,2009
regard to workers' compo My memory is not what it used to be. It
seemed like there was an amount that we were working with.
MR. NEALE: There was. And I believe that basically what that
was is it was -- in those cases, if I remember correctly, it was trigged
basically by an equivalent amount to what the state fine had been. So I
think in those cases those have typically been cases where the state
came in and caught them and then the county came after them
subsequently. So it was whatever the state had imposed. And I think
they were in the range of between 1,000 and $2,500, depending on the
case.
I think this would be -- certainly fall within reasonableness,
particularly as to the -- as to the gravity of the violation. Because one,
he was caught. He appears to have corrected it.
MR. OSSORIO: We took in consideration there are three
employees, one was his son, so we minused him out. And the other
would be $500 per employee, so that made it to $1,000. So that's how
I came to it.
MR. L YKOS: I understand.
You know, in reading Mr. Gonzalez's statement, it was
explained to him that he put the association and the employees at risk.
I want to make sure that when you leave here, you understand
the gravity of that risk that you put people at. It isn't just the fact that
somebody could have fallen off the ladder. Somebody could have
fallen off the ladder and had no insurance company to pay for their
medical expenses, and their only recourse may have been to file suit
against the condominium association.
So you put your employees' welfare at risk, you put the
condominium association at risk.
The other thing that really bothers me about these workers'
compo cases is that you were subcontracted. Somebody else who was
paying workers' compo and paying employee taxes could have
submitted a bid for this project and didn't get it because you didn't
Page 138
1611 A6
August 19,2009
have those costs factored into your estimate.
And we have legitimate companies out there operating and
they're losing business because people like you that may not
understand the laws are submitting bids. And if you wouldn't have got
caught, you'd have kept on doing this in the future.
MR. BUSTO: Sir, he understands now. I'm sure he does.
MR. L YKOS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So we have a motion and a second on the
floor. All in favor, signifY by saying aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries.
Okay, no other recommendations.
This cause came on or before public hearing, Contractor
Licensing Board on August 19th, 2009 for consideration of the
administrative complaint filed against Robert Gonzalez, d/b/a Master
Gutters, Inc. Service of the complaint was made in accordance with
Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended.
Board having at this hearing heard testimony under oath,
received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate
matters thereupon issues its finding of fact, conclusions of law and
order of the board as follows: That Roberto Gonzalez, d/b/a, Master
Gutters, Inc., license number -- is the holder of record of License No.
27736. That the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida is the complainant in this matter. That the board has
jurisdiction of the person of the respondent. And that Robert Gonzalez
Page 139
August Il,90J9 1 A 6
was present at the public hearing and was not respected by counsel at
the hearing on August 19th, 2009.
All notices required by Collier County Ordinance No. 90-105, as
amended, have been properly issued and were personally delivered.
Respondent acted in a manner that is in violation of Collier
County ordinances and is the one who committed the act. That the
allegations of fact as set forth in administrative complaint as Count I
in Ordinance Section 4.1.6 are to be found supported by the evidence
presented at the hearing.
The conclusions of law alleged and set forth in administrative
complaint as to the Count I of 4.1.6 are approved and adopted and
incorporated herein to wit: The respondent violated Section 4.1.6,
disregards or violates in the performance of his contracting business in
Collier County any ofthe building/safety/health/insurance or
workman's compensation laws ofthe State of Florida or ordinances of
this county, as amended, in the performance of his contracting
business in Collier County by acting in violation of the sections set out
in the administrative complaint with particularity.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes,
in the Collier County Ordinance No. 90-105, as amended, by a vote of
six in favor and zero opposed, a majority vote ofthe board members
present, respondent has been found in violation as set out above.
Further, it is ordered by a vote of six in favor and zero opposed,
a majority vote of the board members present, that the following
disciplinary action and related order are hereby imposed upon the
holder of Collier contractor's certificate No. 27736.
That Robert Gonzalez, d/b/a Master Gutters, Inc., is going to be
placed on a one-year probation. He's required to take a business test
within one year. He's to be ordered to pay a restitution fine of$I,OOO
to be paid --
MR. NEALE: Not restitution, just a fine.
Page 140
August Jy,go~91 A 6
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry, just pay a fine of$I,OOO
within 60 days. And ordered to pay $258 in investigative costs and not
to be paid within 60 days.
And you understand that?
MR. GONZALEZ-FORTAN: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And that's the order of the board.
I wish you better luck. Don't take those minor little jobs unless
you've got the insurance and stuff to go with it, because that's what's
going to happen. Good luck to you.
MR. NEALE: One more motion.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Almost.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, we have one other business real
quick.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: When's the meeting for September?
MR. OSSORIO: It says next meeting, it says October 21st, 2009.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. OSSORIO: We have a new meeting scheduled for
September 17th at 10:30 in the CDES building. That's going to be
short, one agenda, for fees. September 17th at 10:30 at CDES in
609-610.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. 10:00?
MS. CLEMENTS: 9:00.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: 9:00? Jennifer, which day is it? What
time will it be?
JENNIFER: It's on the 17th, 9:00 to 10:30.
MR. OSSORIO: Sorry. It says 10:30.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I already (sic) go to the person that
knows the answers.
MR. L YKOS: Before we wrap up, I want to say, Karen, this
report was unbelievable. This was a very complicated case and it was
easy to kind of go through this and you did a great job preparing this.
Thank you.
Page 141
16 I i A 6
August 19,2009 .
MS. CLEMENTS: Mr. Carr actually put that together and we
put that together and did the receipts.
MR. L YKOS: I'm sure this was very time-consuming. It was
very helpful to understand this case and so it was very good.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It's one ofthe easiest ones we've had laid
out in front of us, that's for sure, as difficult as it was to answer.
All right, there's no other reports. Anything else? Nobody's got
anything to say?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No vacations coming up soon? We're
going to try to have as much quorum as we can have for the
September 15th -- 17th meeting for these fees.
And also, one last thing, I guess Mr. Dunn's going to contact
either myself or Mr. Lykos about this--
MR. L YKOS: Through e-mails.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Through e-mails on when we're going to
go to this meeting?
MR. OSSORIO: Yep. I believe he already told me that you'd be
getting some invite today.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Invite, okay.
MR. OSSORIO: So if you don't get it today, call me tomorrow,
or I'll call you.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, if nothing else I need a motion.
MR. WHITE: Motion to adjourn.
MR. L YKOS: Second, Lykos.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
Page 142
16 r 1. '
August 19, 20~
A6
CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? Aye. Later.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 :39 p.m.
COJfIER ~OUNTY LICENSING BOARD
/u:~
RIC JOSLIN, Chairman
These minutes approved by the board on
presented or as corrected
as
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by
Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 143
RECEIVED
SEP 2 2 2009
Collier County Government
Productivity Committee
Meeting Agenda
County Manager's Conference Room
April 15, 2009 2:00 P,M,
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
,V
'~
16 11
A7
Board of County Commissioners
NOTICE:
Members of the public wishing to speak on any Agenda item will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the Chairman
allows more time. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairperson, and state your name and affiliation before
commenting. During discussion, Committee Members may direct questions to the speaker.
All members participating in the Productivity Committee meeting are to follow established meeting procedures.
Please wait to be recognized by the Chairperson before speaking. Speak one at a time. Please silence cell phones
and digital devices.
I. Introduction
A. Call to Order-Steve Harrison, Chairman
B. Approval of the Meeting Agenda
C. Approval of the March 18, 2009 Productivity Committee Meeting minutes
0, Acceptance of the minutes from the Subcommittee to Review and Evaluate Invoices
Received From the Clerk meeting held on March 18, 2009
E. Acceptance of the minutes from the Administrative Services Budget Review Meeting held on
April 1, 2009
F. Acceptance of the minutes from the Subcommittee for Budget Guidance meeting held on
February 11, 2009
II. Unfinished Business
A. Review and Recommendations for Parks Impact Fees
B, Review and Recommendations for Correctional Facilities Impact Fees
C. Follow-up Regarding the Recommendations of the Productivity Committee to the BCC
concerning the Clerk's Invoice Study
D. Follow-up Regarding the Recommendation of the Productivity Committee that the BCC
explore Charter Government to achieve significant cost-savings through the consolidation of
major functions
E, Brief Update from the Administrative Services Budget Review Subcommittee-Larry Magel
III. New Business
IV. Committee Member Comments
V. Public Comment
VI. Adiourn-The next meeting will be held on May 20, 2009 at 2:00pm
Mise, Corres:
Date:JQ] 2- 1 L 0 cy
rtemjj: \ [PIC l')A'1
Copies to:
Board of Counl'/ Commissioners
Collier County Government
Productivity Committee
Meeting Agenda
County Manager's Conference Room
April 29, 2009 2:00 P.M.
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
11 f
RECEIVED
SEP 2 2 2009
NOTICE:
Members of the public wishing to speak on any Agenda item will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the Chainnan
allows more time. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairperson, and state your name and affiliation before
commenting. During discussion, Committee Members may direct questions to the speaker.
All members participating In the Productivity Committee meeting are to follow established meeting procedures.
Please walt to be recognized by the Chairperson before speaking. Speak one at a time. Please silence cell phones
and digital devices.
I. Introduction
A. Call to Order-Steve Harrison, Chairman
B. Approval of the Meeting Agenda
C. Approval of the April 15, 2009 Productivity Committee Meeting minutes
II. Unfinished Business
A. Study of Charter Government
III. New Business
IV. Committee Member Comments
V. Public Comment
VI. Adiourn-The next meeting will be held on May 20,2009 at 2:00pm
Mile, Corres:
Date:
Item #:
Copies to:
,
Board of County commlsslonelS
Collier County Government
Productivity Committee
Meeting Agenda
County Manager's Conference Room
May 20, 2009 2:00 P.M.
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
tt(A?
RECEIVED
SEP 2 2 2009
NOTICE:
Members of the public wishing to speak on any Agenda item will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the Chairman
allows more time. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairperson. and state your name and affiliation before
commenting. During discussion, Committee Members may direct questions to the speaker. ,
All members participating in the Productivity Committee meeting are to follow established meeting procedures.
Please wait to be recognized by the Chairperson before speaking. Speak one at a time. Please silence cell phones
and digital devices.
I. Introduction
A. Call to Order-Steve Harrison, Chairman
B. Approval of the Meeting Agenda
c. Approval of the April 29, 2009 Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes
0, Acceptance of the May 11, 2009 Administrative Services Div Budget Review Subcommittee
meeting Minutes
E. Acceptance of the May 13, 2009 Emergency Management & EMS FY 10 Budget
Subcommittee Minutes
F. Acceptance of the May 18, 2009 Public Services Division Budget Subcommittee Meeting
Minutes
G. Acceptance of the May 18, 2009 CDES Division Budget Subcommittee Meeting Minutes
II. Unfinished Business
A. Review and Recommendations for Parks Impact Fees (continued from 4/15/09)
B. Charter Government Study Discussion
C, Update from the Budget Review Subcommittees-Janet Vasey
III. New Business
A. Discussion Regarding the Addition of a New Road Impact Fee Land Use category and Rate
for Mines-Amy Patterson and Nick Casalanguida
(to be discussed no sooner than 3:30)
B. Discussion Regarding the "Alternate Position". Michele Harrison's term is scheduled to expire
in July. Michele has indicated that she is regrettably unable to reapply due to other
professional commitments.
IV, Committee Member Comments
V, Public Comment
VI. Adiourn-The next meeting will be held on June 17,2009 at 2:00pm
Mise, Corres:
Date:
Item #:
Copies 10:
RECEIVED
SEP 2 2 2009
Collier County Government
Productivity Committee
Meeting Agenda
County Manager's Conference Room
June 17, 2009 2:00 P.M,
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
iA
Board of County Commissioners
NOTICE:
Members of the public wishing to speak on any Agenda item will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the Chainnan
allows more time. Please walt to be recognized by the Chairperson. and state your name and affiliation before
commenting. During discussion, Committee Members may direct questions to the speaker.
All members participating In the Productivity Committee meeting are to follow established meeting procedures.
Please wait to be recognized by the ChaIrperson before speaking. Speak one at a time. Please silence cell phones
and digital devices.
I, Introduction
A. Call to Order-Jim Gibson, Vice Chairman
B. Approval of the Meeting Agenda
C, Approval of the April 29, 2009 Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes (continued from 5/20/09)
D. Approval of the May 20, 2009 Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes
E. Acceptance of the minutes from the Transportation Budget Subcommittee Meeting held on
June 2, 2009.
F. Acceptance of the minutes from the Public Utilities Budget Subcommittee Meeting held on
June 3, 2009.
G. Acceptance of the minutes of the Sheriff's Budget Subcommittee Meeting held on May 28,
2009.
H. Acceptance of the minutes of the Sheriff's Budget Subcommittee Meeting held on June 9,
2009.
I. Acceptance of the minutes of the EMS Budget Subcommittee Meeting held on June 9, 2009.
J. Acceptance of the minutes of the Administrative Services Budget Subcommittee Meeting held
on June 15, 2009.
II. Unfinished Business
A. Charter Government Study Discussion-Gina
B. Update from the Budget Review Subcommittees-Janet Vasey
III. New Business
A. Recommendations (to the BCG) for Appointment of members to the Productivity Committee
B. Discussion Regarding Summer Recess
IV. Committee Member Comments
V. Public Comment
Mise, Corres:
VI. Adiourn
Dale:
Item #:
Copies to:
=;ala~;
I --7, , 'I
~:I~~ing
(' oV1e 1/.
C"oietta fJ (~I co
,
1~
RECE'VED Collier County Government
Productivity Committee
SEP 2 2 2009 Meeting Agenda
c mmlsslonersCoUnty Manager's Conference Room
Boar" of County 0 August 19, 2009
2:00 P.M.
I. Introduction
A. Call to Order-Steve Harrison, Chairman
B. Approval of the Meeting Agenda
c, Approval of the June 17, 2009 Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes
II. Unfinished Business
A, Review and Recommendations -Parks Impact Fees (continued from 5/20/09)
B. Follow up Discussion-Productivity Committee's FY10 Budget
Recommendations
C. Charter Government Study Discussion
III. New Business
A. Discussion regarding a request from the Planning Commission that the
Productivity Committee review cost implications/benefits of the proposed
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance-Robert Wiley, Principal Project Manager
Engineering and Environmental Services Department
IV. Committee Member Comments
V. Public Comment
Misc. Corres:
VI, Adiourn
Date:
Item #:
Copies 10:
16111. fA7
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE
Minutes - April 15, 2009, 2 p.m.
Members Present: Brad Boaz, Gina Downs, Jim Gibson, Michele Harrison,
Steve Harrison, James Hoppensteadt, Larry Magel, Joe Swaja and Janet Vasey.
Members Excused: Doug Fee
BCC Liaison: Commissioner Coyle was in attendance.
Staff Present: Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager; Paula Fleishman, Impact
Fee Coordinator; Len Price, Administrative Services; Barry Williams and Syd
Kittilia, Parks & Rec; Sue Filson, Executive Manager BCC; Nick Casalanguida,
Director Transportation Planning; Crystal Kinzel, Clerk of Courts; Greg Smith,
Sheriff's Office; Michael Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager; Barbetta
Hutchinson, Office of Management and Budget
Others Present: Nilgun Camp, Tindale-Oliver; Ilene Stackel, Naples Daily
News; John Barlow; Kristi Bartlett, EDC.
INTRODUCTION:
Call to Order: Steve Harrison called the meeting to order at 2:04 p,m,
Approval of the Meeting Agenda: Jim Gibson motioned to approve the
agenda, Janet Vasey seconded and the group unanimously agreed,
Approval of the March 18, 2009 Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes:
Joe Swaja motioned to approve the minutes, Janet Vasey seconded and the
group unanimously approved.
Accept the Minutes from the Subcommittee to Review and Evaluate
Invoices Received from the Clerk meeting held on March 18, 2009: Janet
motioned to accept the minutes. Jim Gibson seconded and the group
unanimously accepted.
Accept the Minutes from the Subcommittee to Review the FY10 budget held
on February 11, 2009: Joe Swaja to accept, Brad Boaz seconded and the
group unanimously accepted the minutes.
Accept the Minutes from the Subcommittee to review Administrative
Services held on April 1 , 2009: Joe Swaja motioned to accept the minutes,
Brad Boaz seconded and the group unanimously approved,
161,1' ~7
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Update from the Administrative Services Budget Review Subcommittee:
Larry Magel spoke to the group regarding the review, discussing the current
organizational chart and the next budget review.
Impact Fee Review for Parks: Nilgun Camp gave a presentation regarding the
impact fees for Parks, She said some parks have been reclassified from
community to regional and land value has decreased. Impact fee is calculated
by taking demand, multiplying by unit cost subtracting the credit Land value has
decreased 10% since 2006 when the impact fees were last updated. Barry
Williams answered some questions regarding state and federal lands, level of
service and whether or not we are reaching capacity. Commissioner Coyle
believes that the current method for calculating fees does not take into
consideration privately owned areas. In addition, there are inter-local
agreements with schools where we maintain the land after school hours, Janet
reviewed the questions that were sent to Tindale-Oliver and answered in
advance.
The members were uncomfortable with the fees as calculated as a result of the
regional fee being based on high value beach lands and the premise that similar
amounts will be spent for future growth. They discussed the lack of availability of
future large beach tracts for purchase, the much lower cost of land away from the
coast and the limitations of improvements needed for these future lands. They
also discussed the privately owned park lands and amenities being added in
some new communities which are not accounted for in the study,
Productivity Committee members agreed to specific recommendations:
1) In calculating the land component,
a) Use land values from eastern Collier County (rather than land costs
in North Naples and Marco), since that is where 95% of the new
parks are planned.
b) Minimize the coastal land component, since there will be few
coastal properties purchased in the future and those will be limited
to smaller acreages,
c) Address the fact that a significant amount of park land developed in
the next 10 years will be transferred from other governmental
activities. Park impact fees will not pay for this land and the impact
fee calculations should recognize that fact
2) Check construction costs.
161fiiA7
Tindale-Oliver agreed to rework the numbers to be more representative of the
expected cost of future park infrastructure. Revised impact fee calculations will
be brought back at the next meeting,
Correctional Facilities Impact Fees: Nilgun reviewed the correctional facility
presentation and stated that $325 is a reasonable number. Greg Smith
explained the reduction in bed demand has decreased since the ICE program
and 287G immigration laws have taken effect. Greg Smith explained that studies
found that 36% of the jail population was illegal. The reduction in bed demand
has decreased due to the ICE program and 287G immigration laws have taken
effect resulting in jail expansion plans being pushed out for eight years. Changes
will be made and the fee study will be brought back to the next meeting.
Fast food numbers were discussed. Janet motioned to approve the study with
the suggested changes. Gina Downs seconded and the group unanimously
approved.
Charter Government Discussion: Steve went through the history of the
Productivity Committee's involvement in the study of Charter Government. He
said that it came up as an alternative in the investigation of the effectiveness and
efficiency study, When Charter was presented to the BCC in the past, there was
no interest. However, in the current financial situation it may of benefit to bring
up the discussion again. If the Board decides that this would be something that
could benefit Collier County, it could possibly be put on the ballot in 2010, The
fact is that 75% of the population of Florida currently is under Charter
government and the question is why not Collier? There was discussion about
forming a service company and putting a dollar value on the change.
... Mike Sheffield will invite Larry Baytos to the next meeting since he has
much information on Charter Government that he. could share with the group.
In preparation for the next meeting, the following tasks were assigned:
1. Review organizational charts of governmental agencies within Collier County
to find potential consolidation opportunities that make sense and save money.
(Jim Hoppensteadt, Larry Magel, Michele Harrison) ....Mike Sheffield will
make the org charts available to Jim, Larry and Michele, He will also bring
extra copies to the next meeting. .....Len Price will work on the BCC side,
including titles and grades.
2. Identify the features of a Charter that would be most appealing to the people
of Collier County. Identify what would and wouldn't be beneficial to the people
of Collier County; the pros and the cons, (Jim Gibson)
16 1!1 I A 7
3. Review other County's with Charter forms of Gov and identify those features
that the residents of those County's have found most appealing. How are
those Counties structured? WhaUhow/where do the Charter's of those
County's place the Constitutional Officers? How many County
Commissioners? Are Commissioners elected by district or at-large? (Gina
Downs)
Clerk's Invoice Study: Commissioner Coyle informed the Productivity
Committee that the Board accepted their recommendations and that the
participation of the Productivity Committee is concluded in this matter.
Adjournment: Joe motioned to adjourn the meeting, Brad seconded and the
group unanimously approved, The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
Next Meeting: The next regular meeting of the Productivity Committee Meeting
will be held at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 29, 2009. This meeting will be held
in the County Manager's Conference Room in Building F, second floor at 3301
Tamiami Trail East.
Approved by Productivity Chair, Steve
16 I f: Ai'
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE
Minutes - April 29, 2009, 2 p.m.
Members Present: Gina Downs, Doug Fee, Jim Gibson, Steve Harrison, James
Hoppensteadt, Larry Magel, Joe Swaja and Janet Vasey.
Members Excused: Brad Boaz and Michele Harrison
BCC Liaison: Commissioner Coyle was in attendance.
Staff Present: Len Price, Administrative Services; Crystal Kinzel, Clerk of
Courts; Michael Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager; Barbetta
Hutchinson, Office of Management and Budget
Others Present: Ilene Stackel, Naples Daily News; John Barlow; Georgia Hiller;
Kristi Bartlett, EDC.
INTRODUCTION:
Call to Order: Steve Harrison called the meeting to order at 2:03 p,m,
Approval of the Meeting Agenda: Joe Swaja motioned to approve the agenda,
Janet Vasey seconded and the group unanimously agreed.
Approval ofthe April 15, 2009 Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes:
The group discussed the changes received from Brad Boaz and Janet Vasey.
Joe Swaja motioned to approve the minutes, Jim Gibson seconded and the
group unanimously approved, After the vote, Janet Vasey suggested that the
group make their motions more specific so that everyone fully understands the
intentions of the group,
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Study of Charter Government: Steve Harrison gave the group a short history
of the committee's involvement in charter government and the reasons why it
initially became an item of discussion among the group. He recapped the actions
of the committee and the Board of County Commissioners starting with the
Effectiveness and Efficiency Study in 2004. He reviewed the functions that the
study recognized as having the ability to be combined in order to create greater
efficiency, He focused mainly on the findings from the IT, HR and Administrative
recommendations, He said that what was presented as opportunities were
viewed as challenges to the authority of some constitutional officers.
1611lA7
Commissioner Coyle told the group that they should request that the BCC
authorize them to take another look at Charter Government
Gina Downs discussed the different forms of charters she has researched.
Discussion was made regarding whether we should have one main governmental
entity, should electorates be by district or at large, fire district authority, term
limits, and many more issues,
Commissioner Coyle said that he would recommend the Productivity Committee
be the Charter Commission. They would solicit information, hold public meetings
and go to the Board with a recommendation whether or not Charter is worth the
effort, Give their opinions on whether or not we should just leave it alone, Janet
Vasey said they need to determine a way to sell it to the voters, the Fire Districts
and the Constitutionals that opposed it before.
The Commissioner suggested a three phase approach _181_ Research and
determine how much could be saved by the County as a whole if Charter was
formed. Finally - present findings to the Board in a way that justifies a decision,
giving substantiated savings numbers, 2nd - if directed by the Board, research
and prepare a PowerPoint presentation containing charts of tax bills and side by
side columns showing millage rate comparisons and how much each family could
save in tax dollars. Hold one town hall meeting in each of the 5 Districts, giving a
simple presentation and allow time for questions and answers. Then, using the
input from the voters, write a sensible ordinance that can be easily understood by
the voters. The 3rd phase would be the vote. The Commissioner suggested that
the meetings should be held in season when the most residents are here, The
assistance of the Commissioner's staff will be requested to select places and
dates for the meetings,
Joe Swaja motioned for the committee to undertake the study of charter
government using town hall meetings and typical tax bills as presentation points.
Larry Magel seconded and the group voted unanimously to accept the challenge,
Jim Hoppensteadt told the group that he and John Barlow have been asked by
the Chamber to write a paper on the subject of Charter Government
Commissioner Coyle said that there is a possibility that the Chamber and the
Naples Daily News will have an open forum on this subject in the spring,
Janet Vasey asked for the assistance of a County Attorney and Commissioner
Coyle said he would arrange it ....Steve Harrison will prepare a draft work-
plan to bring to the next meeting,
Public Speakers: Georgia Hiller questioned the authority of the Productivity
Committee to address this subject Commissioner Coyle suggested she contact
Jeff Klatzkow for his opinion regarding the authority of the committee, She asked
161t'1A7
if the committee had studied the operations under the Board of County
Commissioners, looking for savings efficiencies. Steve gave her a copy of the
previous study, but she asked if there was anything more current. She
commented about the discussion regarding the elimination of elected officials
and consolidating fire districts and the effect that it would have on the public,
Steve Harrison said that the budgetary people of the constitutionals have been
contacted and that they are open to suggestions regarding savings potential.
She said she is concerned that members of the committee have already made up
their minds that charter is what we should have and she feels it is important to
present to the public favorable as well as unfavorable things about charter. She
also said that the committee can't make a statement that it's going to save
money unless they can prove it.
Adjournment: Gina Downs motioned to adjourn the meeting, Joe Swaja
seconded and the group unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned at
4:08 p,m.
Next Meeting: The next regular meeting of the Productivity Committee Meeting
will be held at 2:00 p,m. on Wednesday, May 20, 2009, This meeting will be held
in the County Manager's Conference Room in Building F, second floor at 3301
Tamiami Trail East.
pproved by Productivity Chair, Steve
16\! A7
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE
Minutes - May 20, 2009, 2 p.m.
Members Present: Brad Boaz, Gina Downs, Doug Fee, Jim Gibson, Steve
Harrison, James Hoppensteadt, Larry Magel, Joe Swaja and Janet Vasey.
Members Excused: Michele Harrison
BCC Liaison: Commissioner Coyle was in attendance,
Staff Present: Len Price, Administrative Services; Crystal Kinzel, Clerk of
Courts; Carol Golightly, Sheriff's Office; Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation;
Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager; Paula Fleishman, Impact Fee Coordinator;
Nick Casalanguida, Director Transportation Planning; Syd Kittlia, Parks & rec;
Laurie Beard, Michael Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager; Barbetta
Hutchinson, Office of Management and Budget.
Others Present: Sandy Parker, Joyce Fletcher, Lydia Goff and Joyce Evans
from the League of Women Voters; John Barlow; Georgia Hiller; Harold Hall;
Kristi Bartlett, EDC; Diana Watson, East Naples Fire District Steve Tindale and
Nilgun Camp, Tindale-Oliver.
INTRODUCTION:
Call to Order: Steve Harrison called the meeting to order at 2:05 p,m.
Approval of the Meeting Agenda: Larry Magel motioned to approve the
agenda, Joe Swaja seconded and the group unanimously agreed.
Approval of the May 11, 2009 Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes:
Doug Fee motioned to approve the minutes, Joe Swaja seconded and the group
voted unanimously to accept. Georgia Hiller asked that her comments be
expanded in the minutes and Steve asked that the minutes be amended by
adding another sentence or two. The vote was recalled and the minutes will be
included for approval at the next meeting in June,
Acceptance of the May 13, 2009 Emergency Management & EMS FY 10
Budget Subcommittee Minutes: Gina Downs motioned to accept the minutes,
Janet Vasey seconded and the group voted unanimously to accept.
Acceptance of the May 18,2009 Public Services Division Budget Review
Subcommittee Meeting Minutes: Doug Fee motioned to accept the minutes,
Brad Boaz seconded and the group voted unanimously to accept.
1
16 I f1~ ~A 7
Acceptance of the May 18, 2009 CDES Budget Review Subcommittee
Meeting Minutes: Janet Vasey motioned to accept the minutes, Joe Swaja
seconded and the group voted unanimously to accept.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Budget Review Discussions: Steve asked the Commissioner Coyle exactly
what he wanted from the committee in reference to budget reviews. The
Commissioner answered that the Board would like the committee to review
anything they felt could save money or help them be more efficient. If there are
recommendations that the committee could make regarding the budget and have
them to the BCC before the June 29th budget hearings, the Board would greatly
appreciate it.
Janet Vasey will send a list of questions (along with the answers) that were sent
out to various divisions, Members should review the questions before the
meetings are held. Janet will put together reports and recommendations
determined from the budget subcommittees, taking into consideration being
millage neutral and higher than millage neutral. She will have them ready for the
next meeting, Commissioner Coyle asked Janet to look for and suggestions on
how to better estimate turn-back funds so that they can set the millage rate more
accurately. He also asked for a list of priorities.
She also informed the group that she received an e-mail from Jeff Lytel asking
about televising the Productivity Committee meetings. She said she gave her
personal opinion and not that of the committee,
Larry Magel offered to review the County Attorney's budget and that of the
Airport Authority.
The group talked about the dates for the budget reviews, ...... Mike will update
the schedule for budget review meetings as changes arise and make sure the
meetings are publically noticed.
Review and Recommendations for Parks Impact Fees (continued from
4/15/09): Amy passed out the package with the four new scenarios and Steve
and Nilgun reviewed the changes in the presentation as asked for by the group,
They went over four scenarios taking into consideration different areas of land
and the average land value under each scenario. Barry Williams reminded the
group that sometimes opportunities happen, but are not planned. Brad Boaz
asked Barry what the plans are to purchase land in the future. Jim Hoppensteadt
2
1611lA7
motioned to drop scenarios 1 & 4 and review scenarios 2 and 3,Jim Gibson ion 7
(Steve, Joe, Brad, Larry, Jim, Jim G, and Gina) to 2(Doug Fee and Brad).
Janet motioned to accept the growth management plan which is being authorized
on 6/11/09, Gina seconded and the group unanimously approved,
Discussion Regarding the Addition of a New Road Impact Fee Land Use
category and Rate for Mines-Amy Patterson and Nick Casalanguida: Nick
explained the proposed mining fee and stated that Lee County had recently
adopted a similar fee. The fee for Collier County is approximately 50~ a load for
every ,03 cubic yards, The fee is related to the amount of aggregate mining
permitted. Jim Hoppensteadt motioned to accept the study, Brad Boaz
seconded. The motion passed 7 to 2. (2 against - Joe Swaja and Steve
Harrison and 7 for - Janet Vasey, Jim Gibson, Doug Fee, Brad Boaz, Jim
Hoppensteadt, Larry Magel and Gina Downs,)
Study of Charter Government: Steve Harrison reviewed the revised work plan
with the group, including the discussion about meetings in the Fall of 09 in each
of the five districts. Jim Hoppensteadt expressed concern because people may
think this is a power grab by the Commissioners. Steve said that the group
needs to make sure they know their options, Joe Swaja said they need to
explain what charter is, the pros and cons and educate the public before any
process begins, ...... Mike Sheffield was asked to see if he could find a list of
possible participants in the Charter Commission that was prepared by Jim
VanFleet Commissioner Coyle said that all meetings need to be televised and
the public needs to understand the purpose, There will be a wide scrutiny by the
public. Steve will redraft and redistribute the changes to the work plan through
Mike Sheffield.
What can it do? What does it look like? What are the potential savings? James
Hoppensteadt asked how the charter would affect the City of Naples or Marco?
Will independent fire districts be affected by the charter?
The basics need to be done because this should be brought to the BCC meeting
on June 23rd, ...... Gina Downs will write a list of pros & cons. ...... Jim
Hoppensteadt will work on the three options - or are their others? ..... Mike
Sheffield will add this item to the next agenda as a time certain on June 23rd
Sandy Parker from the League of Women Voters offered a suggestion for the
group to look at other counties who have instituted charters and see what the
charters look like and whether or not they have kept constitutional officers, Gina
Downs told her she has a list and has reviewed it with the committee,
Georgia Hiller, in response to a question raised by Jim Hoppensteadt, said that in
regard to state law trumps the County and the county trumps the municipality, If
a county decides to pass an ordinance on an issue that has been ruled upon by a
3
16 1'1 1A?
municipality, the county's ordinance would trump the municipality. She also
spoke about the incorporation of the fire districts through the charter process.
She said if the citizens vote against independent fire districts that it could be
placed on the charter ballot to bring the fire districts under the control of the
county and the fire districts would not welcome this change. She also feels that
the fire districts should not be under the control of the County Commissioners,
Alternate Position: The group discussed whether they needed an alternate
member on the committee. There are two vacancies currently for regular
members. Janet motioned that they do not fill the alternate position, Gina
seconded and the group unanimously agreed. The group will go over the
applications at the next meeting. They will try to get some IT and Engineering
expertise on the committee.
Adjournment: Joe Swaja motioned to adjourn the meeting, Brad Boaz
seconded and the group unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned at
4:25 p.m.
Next Meeting: The next regular meeting of the Productivity Committee Meeting
will be held at 2:00 p,m, on Wednesday, June 17, 2009. This meeting will be
held in the County Manager's Conference Room in Building F, second floor at
3301 Tamiami Trail East.
/~*h~ ~~~
Approved by Productivity Chair, Steve Harrison
4
1611~! A7
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE
Minutes - June 17, 2009, 2 p.m.
Members Present: Brad Boaz, Gina Downs, Doug Fee, Jim Gibson, James
Hoppensteadt, Joe Swaja and Janet Vasey,
Members Excused: Michele Harrison, Steve Harrison and Larry Magel were
absent
BCC Liaison: Commissioner Coyle was in attendance.
Staff Present: Len Price, Administrative Services; Crystal Kinzel, Clerk of
Courts; Carol Golightly and Greg Smith of the Sheriff's Office; Sidney Kittilia,
Parks and Recreation; Tom Wides, Public Utilities; Christine Chase, Emergency
Management; Norman Feder and Therese Stanley from Transportation; Skip
Camp, Facilities Management; Jeff Page, EMS; Michael Sheffield, Assistant to
the County Manager; Barbetta Hutchinson, Office of Management and Budget
Others Present: Sandy Parker, Joyce Fletcher and Lydia Galton from the
League of Women Voters; John Barlow; Georgia Hiller; Harold Hall; Kristi
Bartlett, EDC; Diana Watson, East Naples Fire District; Shannon Holland; Frank
Zhou; Michael Wu and Brent Batten of the Naples Daily News.
INTRODUCTION:
Call to Order: Vice Chairman, Jim Gibson called the meeting to order at 2:05
p.m.
Approval of the Meeting Agenda: Doug Fee motioned to approve the agenda,
Brad Boaz seconded and the group unanimously agreed.
Approval of the April 29, 2009 Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes
(continued from 5/20/09): Brad Boaz motioned to approve the minutes, Janet
Vasey seconded and the group unanimously approved.
Approval of the May 20, 2009 Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes: Joe
Swaja motioned to approve the minutes, Gina Downs seconded and the group
unanimously approved,
Acceptance of the minutes from the Transportation Budget Subcommittee
Meeting held on June 2, 2009: Janet Vasey motioned to accept the minutes,
Joe Swaja seconded and the group unanimously approved to accept the
minutes.
1
161 i 1A7
Acceptance of the minutes from the Public Utilities Budget Subcommittee
Meeting held on June 3, 2009: Joe Swaja motioned to accept the minutes,
Janet Vasey seconded and the group unanimously approved to accept the
minutes.
Acceptance of the minutes of the Sheriff's Budget Subcommittee Meeting
held on May 28, 2009: Joe Swaja motioned to accept the minutes, Jim
Hoppensteadt seconded and the group unanimously approved to accept the
minutes.
Acceptance of the minutes of the Sheriff's Budget Subcommittee Meeting
held on June 9, 2009: Jim Gibson corrected the term "GASB" on the minutes.
Gina Downs motioned to accept the minutes with the correction, Brad Boaz
seconded and the group unanimously approved to accept the minutes.
Acceptance of the minutes of the EMS Budget Subcommittee Meeting held
on June 9, 2009: Janet Vasey motioned to accept the minutes, Joe Swaja
seconded and the group unanimously approved to accept the minutes,
Acceptance of the minutes of the Administrative Services Budget
Subcommittee Meeting held on June 15, 2009: Janet Vasey motioned to
accept the minutes, Joe Swaja seconded and the group unanimously approved
to accept the minutes.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Charter Government Study Discussion: Gina Downs asked the committee to
postpone the review of Charter Government until the next meeting. She said that
the budget reviews have kept everyone so busy that there has been little time for
anything else. Joe Swaja motioned to put a hold on the Charter issue until the
next meeting, Jim Hoppensteadt seconded and the unanimously approved, The
report will be pre~ared so that a presentation can be made at the BCC meeting
of September 29 h,
Update from the Budget Review Subcommittee and Draft Budget
Recommendation Report: Janet Vasey went over the draft budget report with
the group. She reviewed the recommendations from all the budget
subcommittees as far as Property Tax Analysis, General Fund Reductions,
County Manager Reductions, Sheriff's reductions, Unincorporated General Fund
reductions, Public Utilities and Debt Service. She also went over the capital
program and passed our information on homestead properties in relation to tax
neutral. The following items are items that the committee voted on in relation to
the entire report:
2
161('~A7
. Library Card Fee: Jim H. motioned to charge an annual fee (both individual
& family) for library take out items. Brad Boaz seconded. The motion passed
4-3. (For: Jim, Brad, Joe, Gina. Against: Janet, Jim G., Doug)
. Keeping DVD's in the libraries: Jim H. motioned to keep DVD's as part of
the library program, Joe Swaja seconded and the group voted unanimously to
approve.
. Beach Parking Fee: Gina Downs motioned that the BCC consider placing a
fee on annual beach parking stickers consistent with both residents and non-
residents. Brad Boaz seconded. The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 2.
(For: Janet, Jim H., Brad, Gina, Jim G. Against: Joe and Doug.)
. Transportation: Jim H. motioned to accept the recommendations on page 6
of the report and use 7% as the reserve number. Jim G. seconded and the
group unanimously approved.
. Remove $8M from General Fund to Fund 313 for road capital projects:
Jim H. motioned to drop Option 1 as presented on page 9. Brad seconded,
The vote was 5 to 2 to drop the recommendation. (For: Joe, Gina, Brad,
Jim H., Jim G. Against: Janet and Doug,)
. Sheriff's Reductions: Jim Hoppensteadt motioned to adopt the
recommendations for the Sheriffs reductions as detailed on page 7. Jim G.
seconded. The vote was 6 to 1. (Joe Swaja voted against)
. Personnel Cost Reductions - Option 2: Jim H. motioned to keep option 2,
Jim G. seconded, the group voted 7-0 to keep option 2.
. Increasing Board Interest Revenue - Option 3: Jim H, motioned to keep
option 3, Gina seconded, Brad added that Janet should work with Crystal to
come up with a dollar figure to support it The group voted to keep option 3
with a vote of 7-0.
. Caribbean Gardens Tax Rate: Jim H, motioned to keep Option 4. Doug
seconded and the group unanimously voted to keep option 4.
. Unincorporated General Fund (111) Reductions: Jim H, motioned to keep
the reductions as stated on page 14. Jim G, seconded and the group voted
unanimously to keep the recommendations in the report,
. Public Utilities: The group discussed the automatic rate adjustment and
agreed to have Janet rework the language regarding this topic.
3
16Irl~~A7
. Report in Total: Jim H. motioned to have Janet rewrite the
recommendations to reflect all the changes made today, and to have her and
Jim G. represent the committee at the BCC workshops on June 29th. Brad
seconded and the group unanimously agreed.
New Business:
Recommendations (to the BCC) for Appointment of members to the
Productivity Committee: Mike Sheffield passed out ballots to each member
and said that each member got 2 votes since they needed to replace 2 members
of the committee. The votes were counted with the following results:
John Barlow - 5
Kim Frosnell - 0
Shannon Holland - 2
Ann Jacobson - 1
Michael Wu - 3
Frank Zhou - 3
Because of the tie, the committee voted again. This time each member got 1
vote for either Michael Wu or Frank Zhou. The vote was counted and Michael
Wu received 4 votes and Frank Zhou received 3 votes, Mike Sheffield will write a
letter to the Board of County Commissioners recommending John Barlow and
Michael Wu for appointment to the Productivity Committee.
Discussion Regarding Summer Recess: The group decided because of the
amount of work required for the Charter Government Study, that they would only
recess for the month of July, The meeting in August will mainly be discussion on
Charter Government and Parks Impact Fees,
Committee Member Expertise List: For the information of the group, Jim G.
passed out Joe's list of expertise that the committee worked on a few years ago.
Adjournment: Gina motioned to adjourn the meeting, Brad Boaz seconded and
the group unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
Next Meeting: The next regular meeting of the Productivity Committee Meeting
will be held at 2:00 p,m, on Wednesday, August 19, 2009, This meeting will be
held in the County Manager's Conference Room in Building F, second floor at
3301 Tamiami Trail East.
.~l
Approved by Productivity Chair, Steve a rlson
4
16 II' A 7
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE
Minutes - August 19,2009,2 p.m.
Members Present: Brad Boaz, John Barlow, Gina Downs, Doug Fee, Jim
Gibson, Steve Harrison, Joe Swaja, Janet Vasey and Michael Wu,
Members Excused: James Hoppensteadt and Larry Magel were absent.
BCC Liaison: Commissioner Coyle was not in attendance.
Staff Present: Len Price, Administrative Services; Crystal Kinzel, Clerk of
Courts; Jean Myers, Sheriff's Office; Sidney Kittilia, Parks and Recreation; Mike
Bosi, Comprehensive Planning; Norman Feder and Therese Stanley from
Transportation; Amy Patterson and Paula Fleishman CDES; Robert Wiley,
CDES; Michael Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager; Barbetta Hutchinson,
Office of Management and Budget.
Others Present: Michele Klinowski, Chamber of Commerce; Joe Foster; Bill
Wendle, CBIA; Ellie Krier, Nabor; Jim Burke, NNFD; Georgia Hiller; Harold Hall;
Kristi Bartlett, EDC,
INTRODUCTION:
Call to Order: Chairman, Steve Harrison called the meeting to order at 2:00
p,m,
Approval of the Meeting Agenda: Steve recommended to move new business
before the discussion on charter. Joe Swaja motioned to approve the agenda
with the suggested change, Gina Downs seconded and the group unanimously
agreed.
Approval ofthe June 17, 2009 Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes:
Doug Fee motioned to approve the minutes, Joe Swaja seconded and the group
unanimously approved.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Review and Recommendations - Parks Impact Fees (continued from
5/20/09): Amy Patterson began the discussion with a short review of the Parks
Impact Fee review. Syd Kittila passed out some additional information from the
Parks department. The letter from Tindale-Oliver containing the four scenarios
was broken down and reviewed by Janet Vasey. There was discussion
regarding the fairness of the fees, beach parking and boat ramp access, Janet
reviewed a letter that she drafted to the BCC leaving the option to be chosen
blank. Barbetta will update the letter and forward it to Mike Sheffield after a
1
161r~A71
decision has been made. A vote was called regarding which option to choose.
Janet motioned to accept option 4, Gina Downs seconded, The vote was 5 for
(Janet, Gina, Steve, John, Janet) and 4 against (Joe, Michael, Jim, Brad).
Update from the Budget Review Subcommittee: Janet reviewed the budget
review presentation that she gave to the BCC. She said she was disappointed
with the Sheriff's numbers. She went through each suggestion and concluded
that the BCC agreed to $6.1 M in reductions out of the $17M that the committee
suggested,
Charter Government Study: Gina Downs gave a fact-filled presentation and
passed out a handout recapping her study regarding Charter Government. She
told the group that the last time Collier County put it on the ballot was 5/25/75.
The group discussed the next step, Joe Swaja made a motion which was
seconded by Jim Gibson and past by unanimous vote to accept Gina's power
point presentation, and to present the power point presentation to the Board of
County Commissioners. The Productivity Committee is willing to continue to be
an information resource and conduct fact finding, however, the Productivity
Committee is not the vehicle to develop a Charter or to carry a Charter forward to
the next step. The Board of County Commissioners should identify compelling
reasons to move forward with Charter government. ==:> Mike Sheffield will
get this item on the September 2gth agenda of the BCC, Gina will make the
presentation, All interested members of the committee should be present and
Mike will make sure the meeting is duly noticed.
New Business:
Request from the Planning Commission to Review Cost/Benefits of the
Proposed Flood Damage Ordinance: Robert Wiley gave the group a short
history of the flood damage ordinance and the proposed change to Collier
County's "higher regulatory standards" to make the community more resistant to
flood damage. After some discussion, Joe Swaja motioned to decline the
opportunity to get involved in this project because there is no fiscal impact related
to the county, Jim Gibson seconded and the group unanimously approved.
Public Speakers: Harold Hall
Adjournment: Joe motioned to adjourn the meeting, John Barlow seconded and
the group unanimously approved, The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Next Meeting: The next regular meeting of the Productivity Committee Meeting
will be held at 2:00 p.m. on Wed, Sept. 16, 2009, This meeting will be held in the
County Manager's Conf. Room in Bldg F, 2nd floor at 3301 Tamiami Trail East.
Approved by Productivity Chair, Steve
2
'PECE.\\IE.D ~i:II:S
, 6 ~ Henning 009
SEP Coyle .
__"""",,,el& It.
d of COU"\'; COW"--- Coletta -J '--
b"NIINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, August 5, 2009
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services
Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
therein, met on this date at 3:00 P,M. in REGULAR SESSION in Conference
Room #610, Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services
Center, 2800 N, Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members
present:
CHAIRMAN:
Vice Chair:
William Varian
Thomas Masters (Excused)
Charles Abbott
James Boughton (Excused)
Clay Brooker
Laura Spurgeon DeJohn
Dalas Disney
David Dunnavant
Marco Espinar
Blair Foley
George Hermanson
Reed Jarvi
Robert Mulhere
Reid Schermer (Absent)
Mario Valle
ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Administrator, CDES
Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, CDES - Staff Liaison
Bob Dunn, Director, Building Review and Permitting
Gary Mullee, CDES Operations Support Manager
Catherine Fabacher, LDC Manager, Zoni~d Develop.
Stan Chrzanowski, Senior Engineer DItt:.J 0/2/10 C;
Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney IIImIf: (101. C l)A<l
Copies to:
16 PI IA8
August 5, 2009
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at I :30 PM by Chairman WiJliam Varian and a
quorum was established,
Chairman Varian read the procedures to be followed during the Meeting,
II. Approval of Agenda
Chairman Varian revised the Agenda: Item VI, "LDC," will follow Item II.
Marco Espinar moved to approve the Agenda as amended, Second by Reed Jarvi.
Carried unanimously, 8-0.
VI. LDC
A. LDC Amendments 2009, Cycle 1
(Mario Valle arrived - 2:10 PM)
LDC Section Proposed Amendment Discussion Recommendation
Section 2.03.07 L Applicant seeks to Patrick White, Esq" Robert Mulhere
establish procedure presented Private movedfor the
requiring all development Petition LDCA-2009- Amendment to be
and re-development AR-14280. revised to eliminate
Vanderbilt Beach within the VBRTO to the notification
Residential- provide SDP/SIP Discussion items: requirement and to
Tourist Zoning notification to all property . notice issue- clarify the separation
District owners within 500 feet of proper disclosure between structures,
(VBRTO) the subject property, . fiscal impact or to not recommend
Also proposes the . separation between the Amendment.
removal of permitted structures Second by George
encroachrnentinto . possible Hermanson.
required yards for exemptions
VBRTO, . vesting language Robert Mulhere
amended the motion
to include that Staff
review pages 37 - 40
for possible deletion.
Second by George
Hermanson.
Motion carried, "7-
Yes"/" 2 - No."
David Dunnavant
(Page 31) and Marco Espinar
(Vanderbilt Beach opposed stating the
Resident's Association) Amendment should
be rejected in its
entiretv.
2
161~'~A8
Augufr 5, 2009
(Dalas Disney arrived - 2:30 PM)
LDC Section Proposed Amendment Discussion Recommendation
Section Applicant has proposed the Richard Yovanovich, Robert Mulhere
2.03.03 E.l addition of a manufacturing Esq" presented moved to approve
use, surgical and medical Private Petition the Amendment as
instruments and apparatus PL2009-491. presented. Second
Heavy (SIC 3841) to the list ofC-5 by Reed Jarvi.
Commercial Permitted Uses, Said use is Carried
District (C-5) presently permitted within unanimously,
areas zoned Industrial (I) 10-0.
and Business Park (BP)
(Palle 9)
Section 2.05.01 Applicant seeks to apply the Robert L Duane Robert Mulhere
26 dulac density standard presented Private moved to approve
for Hotels and Motels Petition PL2009- the Amendment as
within the Residential 467 presented. Second
Definitions I Tourist (R T) zoning district by Mario Valle.
Density Standards to timeshare properties, Motion carried,
and Housing which are currently Changes: "9- Yes"/"1-
Types restricted to a density of 12 Page "H" - restricted Abstention. "
dulac density is 16, not 12.
George
Hermanson
abstained due to
(Palle 41) conflict o{interest.
(Blair Foley arrived at 2:55 PM)
Section 2.03.07 G Proposed interim Robert Mulhere Reed Jarvi moved
administrative deviation presented Private to approve the
Immokalee process, These provisions Petition LDCA- Amendment as
Deviation Process are designed to be 2009-AR-14280. presented. Second
I Interim temporary until the by David
Standards Immokalee Area Master Changes: Dunnavant.
Plan amendment is adopted, Page 26, (a,)- Motion carried,
change "is" to "if' in "10-Yes"/"1-
the last sentence Abstention. "
Page 26, (top) under
3,05,07,8.1. - add Robert Mulhere
"Preservation" to abstained due to
(Page 21) (lmmokalee eRA) "Table" conflict of interest.
BREAK: 2:58 PM
RECONVENED: 3:04 PM
3
1611'rA!8
August 5, 2009
--
(George Hermanson left - 3."10 PM)
LDC Section Proposed Amendment Discussion Recommendation
Section 1.08.02 Certain restrictions no Catherine Fabacher David Dunnavant
longer appear within the presented the moved to approve
definition, they were Amendment on the Amendment as
Definitions omitted during the re- behalf of Zoning & amended during
codification process; restore Land Development discussion.
"Dwelling, same, Review. Second by Robert
multiple-family" Mulhere. Motion
(Omission) carried, "9-Yes"/"1-
Changes: Abstention"
. "conventional"
will be removed Clay Brooker
from the definition abstained from
. The definition voting since he had
will end at the not been present for
word "both." discussion.
(Page I)
(Clay Brooker arrived - 3: 12 PM)
Section 1.08.02 Robert Mulhere
moved to approve
Definitions Delete definition - no the Amendment as
longer referred to by presented. Second
"Subdivision, Section 10,02,02 by David
Minor" Dunnavant.
Carried
unanimously, 11-0.
Note: George
Hermanson was
(Page 3) not present for the
vote.
(George Herman returned - 3:20 PM)
Section 2.01.00, Regulations for the parking, Catherine Fabacher Robert Mulhere
Generally use, and storage of presented the moved to approve
recreational vehicles were Amendment on behalf the Amendment
(Parking use and moved to the Code of Laws, of Zoning & Land as presented..
storage of See Ordinance 08-64, Development Review. Second by George
recreational Section 2.01.00 is being Hermanson.
vehicles) removed from the LDC per Changes: Carried
direction of the County Page 5 - change "of unanimously,
all" to "all of," 12-0.
(Page 5) Attorney's Office.
4
1611 A8
August 5, 2009
LDC Section Proposed Amendment Discussion Recommendation
Section 2.03.07 Amend the Permissable Robert Mulhere
1.6. Land Uses Table, moved to approve
the Amendment
Bayshore Mixed Performing Arts Theater - as presented.
footnote 8, to increase
Use Overlay seating capacity from a limit Second by Clay
District Brooker. Carried
(BMUD) of 200 to 500 people. unanimously,
This request was overlooked 12-0.
in 2006 LDC Cycle 1
(Page 29) (Omission)
Section 4.02.35 During GTMUD revision Robert Mulhere
(LDCA 2006 - Cycle 1) moved to approve
Design Standards changes were made to the the Amendment
for Development text of the standards; staff as presented.
for the GTMUD overlooked changes to the Second by Blair
Mixed Use graphic illustrations of those Foley. Carried
Subdistrict provisions, The graphics unanimously,
will be corrected to remove 12-0.
conflicts,
(Page 47) (Omission)
Section 4.05.02 M David Dunnavant
moved to approve
Typical Off-Street Changes: the Amendment
Parking Design- Page 55 under "M"- provided a better
Exhibit A Replace current change "foe" to "for" copy is presented
graphic/exhibit which has to the Sub-
become illegible, over time. committee at the
next meeting.
Second by George
Hermanson.
Carried
unanimously,
(Page 55) 12-0.
Section 4.05.04 Ordinance 91-102, as Robert Mulhere
amended, section 2.3.13 moved to approve
Parking Space (Off-Street Parking: not to the Amendment
Requirements be reduced or changed) was as presented.
lost during re-codification; Second by Blair
return language verbatim, Foley. Carried
(Omission) unanimously,
(Page 59) . 12-0.
5
16 JgU~5, ;o~ 8
LDC Section Proposed Amendment Discussion Recommendation
Section 5.05.05 Stipulate that the minimum By consensus: the
yard requirements Amendment will
(setbacks), as provided be revised and
Automobile within the table of site brought back to
Service Stations design requirements, applies the Subcommittee
to all structures -- principal for review.
and accessory,
(Page 63) (Omission)
Sections Clay Brooker
8.03.00,8.03.01, moved to approve
8.03.02, 8.03.03, BCC directed the Amendment
8.03.04,8.03.05, as presented.
8.03.06, 8.03.07, The Board of County Second by Dalas
8.03.08, 8,04.00, Commissioners passed Disney. Carried
8.04.01, 8.04.02, Ordinance Nos, 09-29, 09-30, unanimously,
8.04.03, 8.04,04, 09-31,09-32,09-33, which
8.04,05, 8.04.06, relocated the Planning 12-0.
8,05.00,8.05.01, Commission, the Board of
8,05.02, 8,05.03, Zoning Appeals, the Building
8.05.04, 8.05.05, Board of Adjustments and
8.06.00,8.06,01, Appeals, the Environmental
8.06.02, 8.06.03, Advisory Council and the
8.06,04, 8.06.05, Historic/ Archaeologic
8.06.06, 8.06.07, Preservation Board to the
8.06.08, 8.06.09, Code of Laws and Ordinances,
8.06,10,8.07.00, This LDC Amendment
8,07.01,8.07.02, removes those boards from the
8.07.03,8.07.04, LDC.
8.07.05.
(Page 65)
Discussion ensued concerning the time for the August 19th LDR Subcommittee meeting, The
meeting will begin at I :30 PM, instead of2:00 PM,
III. Approval of Minutes - July 1, 2009 Meeting
Reed Jarvi moved to approve the Minutes of the July 1, 2009 Meeting as submitted.
Second by Dalas Disney. Carried unanimously, 12-0.
IV. Public Speakers
(None)
V. Staff Announcements/Updates
A. Public Utilities Division Update - Nathan Beals for Phil Gramatges
6
161~1A8
,~ August 5,2009
. AUIR Update has been completed and will be submitted to Comprehensive
Planning for review,
. Awarded two Big Cypress Basin Alternative Water Supply Grants of $200,000
each.
B. Fire Review Update - Ed Riley, Fire Code Official
(Not present. Fire Plan Review - Time Frame and Activity Report was distributed to
Committee.)
C. Transportation Division Update - Nick Casalanguida
(No Report.)
D. CDES Update - Joe Schmitt, Administrator
. Four-day work week will conclude beginning October 1,2009,
. Lagging review times are due to reductions in staff,
. $1.4M was borrowed from Parks & Rec Capital Fund to handle overhead and
must be repaid,
. Fee Schedules - the Consultants have not forwarded any reports to date
. It is anticipated that Building Permits will increase by 30 - 40% and Zoning
Petitions will increase by approximately 90 - 100%,
. The increased fees, including Contractor Licensing fees, will allow additional
staff to be hired,
. Board of County Commissioners had considered the privatization of the Building
Department, but fees will triple.
. City View - the Planning Department module (Phase II) is operational but in the
process of being "tweaked"
. The Building Department module is expected to be online by November.
VII. Old Business
(None)
VIII. New Business
A. Discussion of Copy Charges for DSAC Packets - Gary Mullee
. C/Ds of material will be available,
. Agendas and informational materials will be electronically distributed unless
specific requests are made for hard copies,
. Electronic projection equipment will be provided for use at each meeting,
Stan Chrzanowski stated when a Plat or SDP is submitted, Engineering Inspection and
Review Fees are collected, It has been proposed to change the time when the fees are
collected to the Pre-Construction Meeting, rather than at application, Objective is to
collect the fee later in the process when the service is provided, A suggestion was made
to impose a "penalty" if fees are not paid prior to beginning construction, Le" no fee will
be charged for Pre-Construction meetings while fees will be charged for Post-
Construction meetings, It was also suggested to combine the Pre-construction Meetings
for Planning and Utility into one meeting,
7
161.flA8
August 5~009
B. Fire Permit Form (Building Rehabilitation) - Dave Raub, Fire Marshall, North
Naples Fire District
. Florida Fire Prevention Code went into effect in January, 2009.
. Chapter 43 was added to the Code and addresses rehabilitation areas within
existing commercial structures,
. A form has been created which the building is to submit to the District Fire
Marshall prior to submission of permit application to the Fire Code Office.
(Robert Mulhere and Blair Foley lefl- 4:30 PM)
. Determination will be made whether renovation/rehabilitation complies with
existing standards or is to be brought up to the new Code,
. Time frame for the inspection is usually within two to three days,
Discussion ensued regarding liability of risk and who is to sign the form, It was
suggested the form should be submitted to the Fire Code Official at the same time as
a permit application as part of the review process, The form will be reviewed and
revised as appropriate, Goal is "consistency of enforcement"
(George Hermanson lefl- 4:35 PM)
Chairman Varian suggested adding discussion of the Fire Permit Form with Ed
Riley as an Agenda topic for the next DSAC Meeting,
IX. Committee Member Comments
(None)
Next Meetinl!:
LDR Subcommittee Meeting Dates: August 19, 2009 at 1:30 PM (Note: time change)
September 16, 2009 at 2:00 PM
DSAC Meeting Dates: September 2, 2009 -1:00 PM
October 7, 2009 -1:00 PM
November 4, 2009 - 3:00 PM
December 2, 2009 - 3:00 PM
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by
order of the Chairman at 4:45 PM.
8
16 I ~1 4A 8
August 5, 2009
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
~
William Varian, Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the BoardlCo~e on
as presented , or as amended /" '
cr~\ 07
9
16\J
AS
MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR -_.-
FORM 8B
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
lAST NAME-,-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF SOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
" ~~T T ~_ ".,.~
M"J'!rol 'Im~ \lAY THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
VVHICHI SERVE IS A U~~:
C'ifApLES. FL CB'i.'fIER o CITY QUNlY o OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
DXU8l)WC~ ~D~6'89uRRED COLLIER COUNTY FL
MY POSlTION IS: ~PPOINT1VE
o ELECTIVE
,
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive positiOn. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea~
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary ofa corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or toss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a ~relative~ includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-tn-law,
mother-in~law, son;..in-law, and daoghter-in:-law. A "business associaten means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any nationar or regional stock exchange).
.
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this fonn with the person responsible for recording the min,
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes,
.
.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you othelWise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
. You must complete and file this fann (before making any attempt to influence the decision) wkh the person responsible for recorcUng the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporj3tethe'f()rm in the minutes. (Continued ,ohother side)
CE FORM 88 ' EFF, 1/2000
PAGE 1
4
16 1 1 A 8
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the fOI111 must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, GEORGE H. HERMANSON
, hereby disclose that on
AUGUST 5
,2~~
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
...x... inured to the special gain or loss of ~TTNHTRRA.M ROTRJ.H '" RF.HORTS
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or 1055 of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT FOR SECTION 2.05.01 (DENli:JiTY STANDARDS
AND HOUSING TYPES)
, by
, which
Date Filed
9;'l ~/o ,
~:
Signature
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 66 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2
16 11
~
A8
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
____CO_lJ_NTY, MUNtc~JPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE ME NAME OF BOARD. COUNCJl, COMMISSlON, AUTHORITY, OR C€lMMITTE
"'" CM.-vL ~ ~ C(ft ,.~ ~ v/~ L;j
MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCil, CO MISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
(() ;;';> WHJCHISERVEJSAUNITOF:
o CITY e-tX5DNTY
NAME O~ POLITICAL SUBDIVISION.
,-,>,1/,<4. ~.....
MY POSITION IS
<'/
CO~TY .
I<{, C-7 /, (&II
o OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
o ELECTIVE
.er-Af:lPOINTlVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 86
ThlS form is for use by any person serving at the coun~y, city, or other local level of government on an appoInted or elected bo?rd, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the raw when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure whIch
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she Is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or los5 of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity,
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
molher-in-Iaw, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a busIness
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venlurer, cOQwner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of [he corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
.
.
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting In the situations described above, you must disclose (he conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in Ihe measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and nling this form with the person responSible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
.
.
.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain fram voting in the situations described above, you othelWise may participate in lhese matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conmct before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WiLL BE
TAKEN:
. You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 1
1611'~ A8
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
A copy of the form mllst be provided immediately 10 the other members of the agency.
The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form IS filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vole occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I,~~ T, M~ , hereby discloselhat on
~l S--
,20~:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain or loss;
Inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
- /' d I'" ,/L J......./U"..
k- inure (0 the special gain or loss of L"vv""- _.. ~
, by
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my connicting interest in the measure is as follows:
,which
,q-
~ I ?/~ S....-'h
t/rl-/Ii> ~.J-<. I~~
1 Il{ //1 . ~-~/"V I~
VYl D~ t....i/- r ~ Y'"
(U..&~wr- f) 5)) ~
~rd fuf"-',~
i/;(.A- f5~
Date File~
J I Hv1
.
S {/tft
Igna ure
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112,317. A FAiLURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFiCE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 88 ' EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2
161~;1A8
September 2, 2009
RECEivED
SEP 2 3 2009
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
v'
Board of County CommIssiOners
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, September 2, 2009
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Developmental Services
Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
therein, met on this date at 1:00 P.M, in REGULAR SESSION in Conference
Room #610, Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services
Center, 2800 N, Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members
present:
CHAIRMAN:
Vice Chair:
William Varian
Thomas Masters (Excused)
Charles Abbott
James Boughton
Clay Brooker
Laura Spurgeon Dejohn
Dalas Disney
David Dunnavant
Marco Espinar
Blair Foley
George Hermanson
Reed Jarvi
Robert Mulhere
Reid Schermer (Absent)
Mario Valle
ALSO PRESENT: Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, CDES - Staff Liaison
Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney
Gary Mullee, CDES Operations Support ManageMi5C, Corres:
Catherine Fabacher, LDC Manager, Zoning & Land Develop,
DatIl:
Item #:
CDpies to:
6 I .;' '" A 8
1 l .
September 2, 2009
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 1 :05 PM by Chairman William Varian and a
quorum was established,
Chairman Varian read the procedures to be followed during the Meeting,
II. Approval of Agenda
David Dunnavant moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Robert
Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 10-0.
III. Approval of Minutes - August 5, 2009 Meeting
Changes:
. On Page 4, George Herman was corrected to George Hermanson,
Robert Mulhere moved to approve the Minutes of the August 5,2009 Meeting as
amended. Second by David Dunnavant. Carried unanimously, 10-0.
Staff Announcements
Gary Mullee, Financial Manager, asked to speak to the Committee concerning the Fee
Schedule revisions,
. Fee Schedule proposal - response from vendors have been slower than anticipated
. Will meet with Subcommittees on September 8th and 9th at 3:00 PM to present the
"work in progress"
. Revisions will be available for review in late September; final draft will be
presented for full DSAC review in October
. Fee Schedule will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for review
and approval on October 27, 2009
A discussion ensued concerning the amount of paper used by front desk staff. It is
anticipated that when City View is online, the amount of paper used will be greatly
reduced, A Committee Member asked to add City View as a topic for DSAC's
September 16, 2009 meeting,
(Reed Jarvi arrived at 1.' 15 PM)
V. LDC
A. LDC Amendments 2009, Cycle 1
LDC Section ProDosed Amendment Discussion/Action Recommendation
Section 2.03.04 Request to add used Anthony Pires, Esq" Dalas Disney
A.1.a merchandise (5932), presented Private moved to
memorabilia, medallions Petition 2009-338 recommend
Industrial businesses (5094,) and approval.
District (I) associated retail activity to LDR Subcommittee Second by Blair
the list of permitted uses. had recommended Foley.
approval. Carried
(Page 7) unanimously,
11--0.
2
16/fl1A8 I
September 2, 2009
LDC Section ProDosed Amendment Discussion/Action Recommendation
Sections 2004 EAR-based Stephen Lenberger Marco Espinar
3.04.01 Amendment presented the moved to
3.04.02 Amendment on behalf recommend
3.04.03 Include criteria for protection of Engineering and approval of the
3.04.04 of selected listed plants, Environmental Amendment as
Revisions with regard to the Services. revised. Second
Listed Species by Blair Foley.
Section in general, gopher LDR Subcommittee Carried
Listed Species tortoise and listed plants, per recommended unanimously,
direction from the CCPC approval with the 11-0.
during the 2008 LDC following changes:
Amendment Cycle.
(1) Page 12, Item
c.I.: revise language
to clarify intent
concemmg
exemptions for
single family lots
(2) Page 14, Item
D.I.g.: insert
"and/or" (twice)
. ".." from the
FFWCC and/or
recommendations
from the USFWS .."
. "assistance from
the FFWCC and/or
USFWS shall be.."
(3) Page 14, Item
E.: revise language to
clarify intent
concemmg
exemptions for single
family lots
(4) Page 15, Item
A.I.: insert "native"
. "All native
habitats occupied by
gopher tortoises ..,"
(5) Page 15, Item
A,S.: insert "as
prepared by an
authorized Gopher
Tortoise Relocation
Agent"
. " ... off-site
relocation plan as
3
1 6 I lr"t A8
September 2, 2009
prepared by an
authorized Gopher
Tortoise Relocation
Agent shall be '"
(6) Page 20, Item
S.d.: review
provisions of the
Disaster Recovery Act
("Build Back"
Ordinance) adopted by
the BCC for
consistency regarding
applicable time frames
for construction or
repair of permitted
structures damaged by
a named storm
(7) Page 21, Item
ii.: insert "major" and
remove "(greater than
that descri bed in i
above)"
. "Prior to any
major repair work or
reconstruction..., "
(8) Page 21, Item ii.
(c): change "qualified
consultant" to "an
authorized Gopher
Tortoise Relocation
Agent"
. "A survey by an
authorized Gopher
Tortoise Relocation
Agent locating ","
(9) Page 25, under
3.04.04: change
"permitted authorized
agent" to "an
authorized Gopher
Tortoise Relocation
Agent"
. "... that is done by
an authorized
Gopher Tortoise
(Page 9) Relocation Agent in
accordance with. , , "
4
161~IA8
Septe~er 2, 2009
(Charles Abbott arrived at 1:30 PM)
LDC Section Proposed Amendment Discussion/Action Recommendation
Section 3.05.07 2004 EAR-based Stephen Lenberger Marco Espinar
A-B Amendment presented the moved to return
Amendment on the Amendment to
Preservation Native vegetation definition behalf of the Subcommittee
Standards LDC Amendment (CCME Engineering and for further review.
Policy 6,Ll(1) - Also Environmental Second by Reed
clarified single-family Services. Jarvi. Carried,
(Page 29) setbacks, unanimouslv,12-0.
Catherine Fabacher suggested the LDR Subcommittee meet at 2:00 PM on September 16th
prior to the DSAC Meeting,
By consensus, the Committee members agreed,
Discussion ensued concerning the following Amendment which had not been heard by the LDR
Subcommitee:
. Section 3,05,07 H. Lb - Preservation Standards (Page 37)
. Section 3,05,07 H. Le - Preservation Standards (Page 41)
(George Hermanson arrived at 1:35 PM)
Marco Espinar moved to return the above-referenced Amendments to the Subcommittee for
further review. Second by Reed Jarvi. Carried unanimously, 13-0
By consensus, the LDR Subcommittee meeting will begin at I :00 PM on September 16th,
LDC Section Proposed Amendment Discussion/Action Recommendation
Section 5.05.02 To clarify how the County Stephen Lenberger Robert Mulhere
will treat the length of presented the moved to
shoreline within a Amendment on recommend
Marinas conservation easement when behalf of approval of the
calculating the number of Engineering and Amendment as
wet slips allowed, Environmental revised. Second by
Services. Dalas Disney.
Carried
LDR Subcommittee unanimously, 13-0.
approved approval
with the following
changes:
(1) Page 40, Item
G.: insert "expressly
and specifically"
. "n. the
(Page 97) Conservation
5
16 Jeplbe~ ~ 2~d9
Easement expressly
and specifically
excludes the use"."
IV. Public Speakers:
Kathleen R. Robbins, Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, expressed concern
regarding revision to the Amendment and the potential affect other Conservation
easements that did not anticipate the necessity to exclude "in-water structures." She
suggested re-wording the Amendment from "expressly and specifically exclude.,," to
"expressly and specifically anticipate" ,,"
Discussion ensued,
LDC Section Proposed Amendment Discussion/Action Recommendation
Section 10.02.06 To change the requirement Stephen Lenberger Robert Mulhere
for the (annual) vehicle-on- presented the moved to
the- beach (VOS) permit to Amendment on recommend
Submittal a one-time permit (vehicle behalf of approval. Second
Requirements for registration), Engineering and by Reed Jarvi.
Permits Environmental Carried
Services. unanimously, 13-0.
LDR Subcommittee
recommended
approval of the
Amendment.
(Page 101)
Section 1.08.02 To define balconies in a LDR Subcommittee By consensus, the
manner that distinguishes had recommended Amendment was
"roofed" balconies from revising the Amend- referred to Staff
Definitions: "unroofed" balconies, ment to provide for clarification,
clarification of the and the revised
"BaIcony/Porch reasoning behind the version will be
and Deck" definitions for brought before
"balcony" and DSA C for review.
"porch."
DSAC recommended
changing "guard"
rail to "hand" rail in
the definition of
"Porch" on Page 2,
DSAC recommended
changing the
definition of "Porch"
to: Exterior
6
16rl1A8;
September 2, 2009
structure with a
roof, containing a
door that provides
an entrance to the
porch and may also
have steps and a
handrail.
Also suggested was
modifying the
definition of "Deck"
to include: "... a
deck that is over 30
inches is subject to
(Page I) set back. "
Section 1.08.02 To restore certain DSAC had No action was
restrictions which no longer recommended required.
approval of the
Definitions: appear within the definition Amendment subject
and were omitted during the to changes to be
"Dwelling, re-codification process, made by Staff.
Multiple Family"
The revised
Amendment was
returned to DSAC
(Page 3) (Omission) for review of the
changes,
Section 1.08.03 BZA Directed DSAC recommended By consensus, the
amending the Amendment was
Return chord method of definition of "Depth" referred to Staff
Definitions: measurement to be used to as follows: for clarification,
"Yard, front" determine location of ". .. provided the and the revised
setback on irregularly- depth, as measured version will be
shaped lots and those facing from the property brought before
cul-de-sacs. line, at any point, is DSAC for review.
(Page 5) never less than ","
Section 2.03.07 Correct Bayshore "Drive" to LDR Subcommittee Reed Jarvi moved
read Bayshore "Way," had recommended to recommend
Overlay Zoning approval of the approvalo/the
Districts - Amendment. Amendment.
Goodland Storage Second by George
Sheds Hermanson.
Carried
(Page 9) (Scrivener's Error) unanimouslv, 13-0.
7
1611'Aa
September 2, 2009
LDC Section Proposed Amendment Discussion/Action Recommendation
Sections Revised in GMP FLUE This Amendment By consensus, the
3,06,06 will be returned to Amendment was
C,E,F,&H To replace the existing DSAC for review. referred to Staff
Illustration with the for clarification,
Regulated proposed update of the and the revised
Wellfields - appropriate Collier County version will be
Golden Gate, Utilities Wellfield brought before
FGUAGGC, Illustration. DSA C for review.
Orange Tree and
Ave Maria
(Pages 57, 59, 61,
63 and 65)
Section 4.05.02 M Replace current graphic! DSAC recommended By consensus, the
Exhibit which has become approval subject to Amendment was
Typical Off-Street illegible over time, the County providing referred to Staff
Parking Design, a better quality for correction, and
Exhibit A graphic, the revised version
will be brought
Correction before DSACfor
Page 71: review.
. Change the
sidewalk dimension
from 5' to 7'.
(Page 69) (Clarification)
Section 4.02.01 Allows for encroachment of . During the 2008 By consensus, the
pool equipment and well LDC Cycle, Staff Amendment was
Dimensional pumps, if unenclosed, into proposed allowing referred to Staff
Standards for required yards, unenclosed pool for correction and
Principal Uses in equipment and well the revised version
Base Zoning pumps to be located will be brought
Districts in the side yard of a before DSACfor
property. DSAC review.
approved the revised
Amendment
. The BCC stated
pool and all NC
equipment should be
located in the rear of
the yard or indented
into the side yard.
DSAC was directed
8
1611 AS
September 2, 2009
to review proposed
changes and make
recommendations,
. OSAC is to
determine if changes
will impose an
additional financial
burden on
homeowners and
perform a basic cost
assessment
Corrections
Page 67:
. Remove first
Bullet Point
. Second Bullet
Point - correct dollar
amount is $1,000
. Add language
to the last Bullet
Point clarifying the
energy efficiency of
the unit will be
negatively affected.
. Add Bullet Point -
concerns regarding
creation of non-
conformity and cost
of retrofitting design
vs, change to initial
(Page 67) house drawings
Sections Brings two inconsistencies LOR Subcommittee Robert Mulhere
4.06.01 - with changes to graphics recommended moved to
Generally and text - to eliminate approval of the recommend
conflicts in the Code, Safe Amendment approval of the
6.06.07 - Clear Sight triangles are required Amendment.
Sight Distance to be 30 feet from the point Second by Reed
of intersection, not 25 feet Jarvi. Carried
(Clarification) unanimously, 13-0.
(Page 73)
Section 4.06.05 Restore previously omitted LOR Subcommittee Robert Mulhere
subsection and update recommended moved to
General Section cross-reference. approval of the recommend
Landscapin2 Amendment approval of the
9
16 111 1A 8
September 2, 2009
Requirements Amendment.
Second by Reed
Jarvi. Carried
(Page 77) (Omission) unanimouslv, 13-0.
Sections Re-write the Temporary Use Discussion ensued, By consensus, the
5.04.05 Permit Section to clarify and DSAC asked Staff Amendment was
5.0505 include uses previously for clarification of referred to Staff
5.04.06 contained within the Sign "Special Events," for clarification,
5.04.07 Code, "Temporary Use and the revised
5.04.08 Permits," and version will be
10.02.06 G and signage, brought before
Appendix G DSA C for review.
Temporary Use
Permits
(Page 79)
Discussion ensued regarding Section 5.05.05 - Automobile Service Stations. At the August 5,
2009 meeting, DSAC's recommendation was to revise the Amendment and bring it before the
LDR Subcommittee for review,
VI. Committee Member Comments
(None)
Next Meeting:
DSACI Building Dept. Fees Subcommittee - September 8, 2009 - 3:00 PM
DSACI Zoning-Engineering-Environmental Fees Subcommittee - September 9, 2009 - 3:00 PM
LDR Subcommittee Meeting - September 16, 2009 - 1:00 PM
Special (Full Board) DSAC Meeting - September 16, 2009 - 3:00 PM
There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjourned by
order of the Chairman at 2:45 PM.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
u '
.",.-
Ham Varian, Chairman
10
The Minutes we;~ved by the Board/Committee on
as presented , or as amended ,
II
16 11
r~tL91
A8
September 2, 2009
1611 A9t
FOREST
LAKES
ROADWAY ANI) DRAINAGE M.S.T.LJ.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH
NAPLES, FL 34104
September 16,2009
AQenda
I. Call to Order
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes - August 19, 2009
V, Transportation Services Report
A. Budget - Caroline Soto
B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard, Chris Tillman!
Malcome Pirnie
VI. Old Business
A. Drainage Structure between MSTU and downstream Golden
Gate Structure
VI. New Business
VII. Public Comments
VIII. Adjournment
Next meeting will be October 21, 2009 - 10:00 a.m.
CC Transportation Building, East Conference Room
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
Copies to:
16 I 1
A9
FOREST
LAKES
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE M.S.T.tI.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH
NAPLES, FL 34104
August 19, 2009
Minutes
I. Call to Order
Meeting was called to order at 10:03 a.m. by George Fogg, Vice
Chairman. A quorum was established.
II. Attendance
Members: Harold Bergdoll, William Seabury, George Fogg, Robert
Jones (Excused), Virginia Donovan (Excused)
County: Tessie Sillery - MSTU Operations Coordinator, Darryl Richard _
MSTU Project Manager, Caroline Soto - Budget Analyst, Michelle Arnold
- ATM Director
Other: Chris Tilman - Malcolm Pirnie, Sue Flynn - Mancan, Andrew
Eisele - JRL and Homeowner
III. Approval of Agenda
Harold Bergdoll moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second
by William Seabury. Motion carried unanimously 3-0,
IV. Approval of Minutes - July 8, 2009
Remove: ;'Was perceived as a facilitator for approvals on Projects" from
Page 2.
William Seabury moved to approve the July 8, 2009 Minutes as
amended. Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously
3-0
V. Transportation Services
A. Budget - Caroline Solo distributed and reviewed the Budget Report
(See attached)
o Ad Valorem Tax Collected - $223,354.01
o Received Investment Interest - $163,570.23
o Available Improvements General- $1,658,877.06
o Available Operating Expenses - $249,817.85
B, Project Manager Report - Darryl RichardlChris Tilman - Malcolm
Pirnie - The Forest Lakes Master Project List was distributed and
reviewed. (See attached)
16 11 A 9
Darryl Richard recommended the Committee enter into a
Comprehensive Maintenance Contract for the MSTU. He stated a
special type of mower to mow swales is required due to the different
slope degrees.
The Golf Course cannot maintain the swales because of the type of
equipment needed. They have asked if the MSTU would consider
maintaining bank to bank.
If the MSTU purchased it there may be issues on who will maintain it.
A general maintenance contract was discussed.
The contract would require a Contractor to do tasks on the MSTU
properties and ROWs as required.
'" Mowing
r Tree Maintenance
'" Culvert Cleaning
'" Pipe Cleaning
r Minor Swale Repair
'" Regrading
'" Re-installing signs
Chris Tilman recommended the Contract include -
'" Grounds mowed weekly with a contracted figure,
'" Hourly rate per task plus time and materials on "as needed"
basis
'" Typically a 4 year contract
Harold Bergdoll moved to retain a Maintenance Contractor to
maintain the MSTU ROWs and infrastructure. Second by William
Seabury. Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
Chris Tilman reviewed the following -
· (F-45 band c & F-50J Rearade Swales and Install Culverls
Earth Tech has completed the projects on July 30th and are
currently working on a punch list. The Yellow Poinciana tree
was included on the list.
The Committee requested Staff to provide a letter from Malcolm Pirnie
addressing the concerns of standing water, mosquitoes breeding,
pollution and how the hydraulic system works.
· (F-53J - Quail Run Lake Shoreline Restoration and Stabilization
ERP Permit has been received. Purchasing requested bid
drawings for bulkheads and bid support services as a
"Construction Contract" which changes Malcolm Pirnie scope,
Darryl Richards distributed a Draft received from Malcolm Pirnie on
the Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Issue Project Change Order proposal
from RWA Consulting for land surveying services. (See attached)
2
Harold Bergdoll moved to amend Malcolm Pirnie Contract to
make the renovation the bid drawings. Second by William
Seabury. Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
1611A9
William Seabury left at 10:55 am
· (F-55) - MillinG, PavinG & DrainaGe Imorovements on Forest
Lakes Blvd from Quail Forest to Woodshire Lane
Notice to proceed was issued to Better Roads on August 12.
The drainage line was higher than expected and box is being
modified accordingly.
William Seabury returned at 11:01 am
· (F-56) South Woodshire Ditch Imorovements
Scope has been developed for contractors. Changed sequence
on project to do wall. Clear all vegetation along Woodshire and
change scope from sod to Hydro-Seed to prevent erosion
temporarily until sidewalk is installed.
· (F-57) DrainaGe Svstem MaooinG and Adiustments
Changed mapping to Incorporate into the County GIS System in
lieu of CAD drawings.
· (F-58) Sidewalks, LiGhtinG Imorovements, and Roadwav Tree
Plantinas
Project has been changed to a Design Bid Built and bids will be
submitted through the County BVO Process.
Discussion ensued on the proposal received and the need for the
scope of services from RWA
George Fogg moved to approve the proposal by RWA not to
exceed $26,200 to provide survey work to include; stake property
line, lake stabilization survey and sidewalk design survey.
Second by William Seabury. Motion carried unanimously 3-0,
Darryl Richard stated there will be two public presentations. The
"Initial Kick Off" presentation will be held after the Contractor has been
selected. He stated comment sheets will be made available for Public
input.
Michelle Arnold recommended the MSTU hold a Ribbon Cutting
Event after the sidewalk and the wall was installed to draw attention to
MSTU's accomplishments
· (F-60) Cul-de-sac Imorovements
The Draft Scope has been completed. A meeting has been
scheduled with Waste Management to work on an effective cul-
de-sac design.
3
1 6 I~ 1 A 9
· (F-62) Maintenance Dredaina of Lake 8
Draft Scope completed and is scheduled to go out to bid.
· (F-63) Properly Line Wall Alona Woodshire Lane
The precast concrete wall will be installed from the pool
maintenance shop to the southern end of Woodshire Lane.
George Fogg distributed a photo taken on Linwood Drive of precast wall
design for the Committee's consideration, (See attached)
Discussion ensued on the type of fence and the fence costs and it was
determined that it may need to be installed as a "cast in place" due to
power lines. Panels could be completed as "precast" if agreed to by the
design firm.
It was determined the County will issued a permit for a wall up to 8 feet
high.
Darryl Richard suggested a meeting be scheduled with Florida Power &
Light.
William Seabury moved to approve the wall concept as displayed in
photo taken on Linwood Drive. Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion
carried unanimously 3-0.
Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed the annual renewal of Malcolm
Pirnie Contract. (See attached)
William Seabury moved to approve the Malcolm Pirnie proposal in
the amount of $40,000. Second by George Fogg. Motion carried
unanimously 3-0.
It was noted Committee Member attendance requirements in Ordinance
86-41 Section 8 state a Committee Member will be automatically
dismissed if the member misses two consecutive meetings without an
excused absence or if that member misses more than half of the meetings
held. This clause is only enforced when addressed by the Committee.
VI. Old Business
A, Drainage Structure between MSTU and Downstream Golden Gate
Structure - AMIL Gate
Chris Tilman reported he has been working with Stormwater on
easement maintenance. RWA will provide a draft outlining the scope.
Meetings have been scheduled with Margaret Bishop and Big Cypress
Basin,
VII, New Business - None.
VIII. Public Comments - None.
IX, There being no further business to come before the Committee, the
meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 11 :56 A,M.
4
16 I 1
A9
Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage
MSTU Advisory Committee
These minutes approved by the Committee on --.!1 ' q , () ~
as presented or amended ~
F
The next meeting is September 16,2009, 10:00 AM
CC Transportation Bldg, East Conference Rm
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
5
16 'I 1 ~~CEIVED v
SEP 2 I 2009
FOREST
LAKES
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
T. ~rd of County Commission8lll
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH
NAPLES, FL 34104
August 19, 2009
Summary of Minutes and Motions
III.
Approval of Agenda
Harold Bergdoll moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second
by William Seabury. Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes - July 8, 2009
Remove: "Was perceived as a facilitator for approvals on Projects" from
Page 2.
William Seabury moved to approve the July 8, 2009 Minutes as
amended, Second by Harold Bergdoll. Motion carried unanimously
3-0
V. Transportation Services
8, Project Manager Report
Darryl Richard recommended the Committee enter into a
Comprehensive Maintenance Contract for the MSTU. He stated a
special type of mower to mow swales is required due to the different
slope degrees.
Harold Bergdoll moved to retain a Maintenance Contractor to
maintain the MSTU ROWs and infrastructure. Second by William
Seabury. Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
Darryl Richards distributed a Draft received from Malcolm Pirnie on
the Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Issue Project Change Order proposal
from RWA Consulting for land surveying services.
Harold Bergdoll moved to amend Malcolm Pirnie Contract to
make the renovation the bid drawings. Second by William
Seabury. Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
iF-58) Sidewalks, Liqhtinq Improvements, and Roadwav Tree
Plantinas Proiect has been changed to a Design Bid Buil\igCC9i~ will
be submitted through the County BVO Process. ..
Date:
lien
16 Ii 1 A 9
George Fogg moved to approve the proposal by RWA not to
exceed $26,200 to provide survey work to include; stake property
line, lake stabilization survey and sidewalk design survey.
Second by William Seabury. Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
Discussion ensued on the type of fence to be installed on the Property
Line Wall along Woodshire Lane and the fence costs and it was
determined that it may need to be installed as a "cast in place" due to
power lines.
William Seabury moved to approve the wall concept as displayed
in photo taken on Linwood Drive. Second by Harold Bergdoll.
Motion carried unanimously 3-0,
Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed the annual renewal of
Malcolm Pirnie Contract
William Seabury moved to approve the Malcolm Pirnie proposal in
the amount of $40,000. Second by George Fogg. Motion carried
unanimously 3-0.
2
08/31/2009 03:02 18774585770
PROCESSOR
PAGE 02
1 6 I r1 'A 9
" . . ~ ~
... " - . -a
I ~ . ~ J
~ . . . ~ it
. il &.~ ~ ~ .~ ~. o i. j f Hi
. !~ i ,*
I I 0 i I ~ I -,
~ ~f "f . 01
" . .
. ~ , .
~ . ~ i
s , f t r ~ r
I " i I f f I 8 t
r
J I i z ~ ,
f ~ , . . Iii
J I ~ .: ~ I J I I il
: l I . i ~ ~ f -! jf
! i -" ; . I " i
. -. i f ~ ; ~ .
~ 8 f ~ , ! , ~ f f Hi
. . I . ~
0 .. i f ! i ri[
f ! ; i i
I t i f III i ~!
,
i j ~ ~ ~.- -I
~ . ~
~ ~ 1 ~ I i ~ 5~
! 1-" ~ i
-~ . " J I i ~ i
i · ! if
! i f I & t' ~ i ~ if ~ m
.
il ~ ~ i ~ ,
l l f ~ ;- Ii
~ ~ l ~ 0 ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ciC6'
. "8." i
~ ~ ~ ~ i i
; Ii r+
I .''OJ;
oil a
I '~ll P i I pi !ij:!! I I I I i ~ sIr
f I' ~Jj Jj :; II
hi I ir-CIl
~i ~ .J ;:!
.
i~ i ~l l
w ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~
,
~ li )l: -~ .t1 ,~ ,0
~ g ~ g g g g I
~ ~ ~ I w
~ fi g !;
~ '-' .
. ~
.
~ w j; ~ ~ i !
',.._~, ii
!l . ~ . ~ ~
~
IfUI~IHU !HU nUpIUi :i;H~iJ!li!inhIH~!U! Ii I Ii
to ~pw, fW ~ i~ 'r i ~~l l.--..gal i~~8'~ !.::i~ f . &
itl! !Il11 !ill! IlflHnllllil ilWllli! iillillill!
!iJ~l dH~ ~t~U L~t IH~j ~.Ii IHI i-U ~-~ n~i ~~ !
- ~ ~ '"' ~ ~ 8 ! ~ ~_::> "i !3 l':... lJ (,f ~ ~ ~
08/31/2009 03:02 18774585770
PROCESSOR
16PT fA 9
z
.~ III
~ " " . . " . " . . .
t - . ~
* /; ~ . * . . . - . ~
; - . ~ . "
~ J I f I g j I I i i
I t
! ! f i
i j' f I j I' f f
J I ! I I i ! .
i
I I { I f. ! f
r
I , ~ . I i i
i .. I !
.. i! - .t i
, . II :
iI I
! 1 = .
g ~
. l II l
~ j f
I
z "
~ i ~
.
I .
r
.~
l.
!
@ ~ 1" ~ .. " l ~ " < m
~ ~ 0 ~ ~ .
~ i i' ~ " i' i' .
~ ~ . . f i
z " ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ " !II: "
0 ~
. 0 . H~
~ . ~ " i
1111 . . if::
~ I Jf ji I Jf I ;~ i if o~ Hi
~u~ J f f J If J I Ii h~
h~~ i i f i ~.
- ~ Ii ~ ~ Ii i ~
~'~i 0 ~
.ii. ~
;::~W3 c m
m - .
in~ . ~ - " -
~ 8 OJ " I ~ .
i " [
~z'i ~ ~ .~ ~
~ g
zU~ .
-r<- ~
. :i!~
~. ~ .
ml~N ~ ~
.
'-.-/ i
I
n'll'l fi' "" Irr 'T ~Hf I
~i ~. i i tIt
tr Ii Ii Illi lini Iii H-j
Ii II J ll~ Jr~ii id ph
H II .~ ~. 0 Ii g 'I~
g" ~ii fhl . ! .~ .
n ~ if
Ii II ~f. "ir "I .1'
"9 ~I. I" i Iii
'I .1 t[ ~. i j~. i f i ".
h .~ f .' iill ._ i,1
, i aOf
. ~ i.:c Ii !"'~ ~.
.- . ~ 9" !I <>. it
oo~
oo~
:!!~~~
l.....:.....-'<f-
~ ;;
::i
~~~8~~gg
Qj..,...:ID~..-:\lJo.r.iO
~~~"'~pj~~
:i ~c<)- lB -
g~88~f;:
~pj~~u)~
0'- NeD ....
~- ~
0000
qq~<<l;
un
~,;-~-..r
000000000
OOOOOlD,,",om
~'&ridc<<id~d>ri
NOOfIQNr--O...
OOalO..-O)M.....r-.
g<n-~*~c-.i ...-~
_ww~www___ww__wwww___w___________w____
Ii ,.
oc( .S
l!l .
d
o
o
d
~
"'-
000000000000
000000"100000
gggggg~gg~g8
'<t'<t lQLl;I'<fOCS:>I''<t('\/O In
~.~-~I7i~-~g~;;;-~-l'-- .;6
000
.,_0
~~~
"1'"".....
~ ~
ON_ 00
0('<)(")00
2 gj g g~
m In...... LI)(I';I
~....- N"t-
~l8&;
<<i..,...:......
~*~
~~i
~w~wwwwwwww~.~~~~w~~_______~__~~~~_~~~w
~ Lt ; ! " r ~* ~:g~~$ ~
f',.i'-"-~$,,,-f',.l'>-"-r-.. ~l'-'T ...- ;~SI8 .
n " JtJ~hi
~:!i~~ ~ - ~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~
W?~W? 0
~~ , IXl . m '<'
'50 ......01-0 ~ <31; 0 ot;t;ot;t;o u..1- 0....1
~ ~ ~ HU~ ~
U .. g :;Q. Q.Q,. ""g,
m 0.::::1 :::E::E ::E::E
:::l
~
rn ...
:& ...
~t!!~
C"
z~
~:::l"
rn LL. co
lJJ "
a: 0(
o
...
1tI a:i > ""_ \,;.I
~~ <0 2 ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~E~
II ~ t ~~~ _~ _~~~~~~~~~ E
{illl' ; II ,21111111111111111111,111 i
o ~~~~~~~'~W~~~~~m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~;~a~~
2l~0I01 o.l::.iiibmts............:.::o::o~::o ::o::o::o::o::oJ:i!sJ:......<I;:lIItl(l)I:/.IWI;;E:~
~~I::I:: s~v~~~~~oOOoO OOOOOOUOO~-'~~~~U'i~~
~~~~!e~Ju~~esg~~~s~~~~~~~~~~~; ~~~~~S~i
oo~~-~w- _~~w~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~w W~~~~Z~~
~m~;ffim~~ ~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~il~~~~-~~~~~
~~~~~~~U~uu~N~NNNm~m o~~~~ V ~~~~~~_
Ooo~5 ~~~G~~2~~~~g~g~~8o~~g ~ ~~mmm,8~
~~~~~ ~O,'--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,,'~~~~~~~O~
~~~~v~. ~~~~~~~v~~~~~~~~~~v~~vvv~~~
. -
S .2
lb ,L: U. _ III
Egg ~ ~.E E c ~ ,3: lG _
~ ~~~!~~~~~1j~~~~~~,~~.i~~~~,~~ ~~i ~~~
~..JJ~~IU~~~ii~~f~f~ff~fflflf I~~. .~I=
~t.~~!€~iil~iiJiJiliiiiiliiii~tff:::!I~
~~~~~~i~==~~~~~~2~~5~~~~2~22.foo~~~~~~
i;~lOl
~gRt;;N
. ",,:~Ill- t
:a:_:'tV1~ ~
::1 r-...
~~
'"
88~&'lggg8::J:18~8!
gg~;!d22:g~~~gt::
'V. o. '" N 8.i5.:i'1 10. el!. ~<::!.~
:ll~ NN ~ ~U!
~"':N.
<;omlD 00
ll'll,(}... 00
~~U~
.. ..~ r-.."":
~3
WiR-W_"""""""~_",,,
g~~7Qi
:ig,e:r-:....
~(f)Ol.l"lM=
I~fi~li 11
.:i~N ...... <'i
..~_iR-iR-~_"W_WiR- ~~WW~W~M~~
~ 00 ~~ g~::g: :gi:! "0 g~~=
ID 00 PO
~ :;:~ oilrilri ~;t H dr-.:Ntft
~ m~ ~N DMOM
~ "'~ ~ ~ ...'" ,.......0...
<').~ oi f'foi t!'i ~N.nr-:
pm
m
oll
_~~ww _~~~_ ~_w_-~ww~W_~WWiR-_W_WiR-iR-
~
S
E
S
II: >'11 .. " 8
"":~
ro: ..riai ~~ '"
0 N'- ~
~ ~ N_ ;;i~
.
..
Mtlt9't"_~"CIIt-...w-..
..
~ "
gg;~
00'0
..tN......
WW_~~fiiR-~~W_~~ ...~_~_
..
~
i"iil
i ~
. 'a tl
~cil
s
."
"
o
"
ci
C
f 8i8:J
'~,"~-~~~
~ ~m~'"
__ LJi.o. Ci
~:!:. AtI
~~$~8~8gg8
U_~8_UUU
~ <"l::..... .....-...:N.('>j~-..:
l~~S~~.SSIiH~1
~~H!2U!2U~
~~giJc:t;fq;iIliN'r-:!:i
lllf_o... "~;:lj
M~'~n ....:...w
~.~ <11
'" < li
&~ ~
. - .
-~ .
i~ g
"'-""W-W_WiR-W_...
f3 ~ <c5~Q
"~,, ",UWIll !
~~ffl~!Y~~~LL
zg::..J!::;t~(!)O
a'li~8t;::i::r~oo~o
'" Z::::IO Q:'[Ur,)
oO;:~e:",:i13'~"'''
~Ii!z~..~~"",>-,,
~:i:~t;~ffi~fZ1rf3ffi
5l~~~zt;(I,l>)o.~t:i
a~H~Un~g
_WW"_W~www____ww __...........
~ "
~ ~ w
~m~ ~ 0 ~ ..J ~
~!~~ ~~~(!) (I,l~~~ Q ~8 ~
"o"'I~~ wzii ~ffiG~ ~z ~p .oz
~z~ Z5 _ -~~w~ <~~
~<w ~ ~2ffi~ i~~~~~ (I,lW!u
(!)z8g~~w~~~"'uwow~5~ i~u~
f3~<~u~2~(!)~ ~&z::ioooffi~~~~~
W~::i~~~~!zm ~~u~~~~~~~>
~~ffi~~~~~~ffi~~~ffi~~~~~~~~Wmffi
Z~::iz~O~W~u@~~~~oc ~~oo ~~
wmw_o~w~~~~ooo~~~~=~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~A~~~~~=~~~n~~~~
dOSS3~Odd 0LL989vLL81
C:0:E0
-....f?.....
16"'tIO...~:;~
10 38'Vd
161'1 A9
\<!
,.;-
m
"
,.;-
N
~
600C: 11E/80
1611lA9
08/31/2009 03:02
18774585770
PROCESSOR
PAGE 04
MAID )( \1
PIRNIE
"UIf;:PtNMNT tNVlI'IO"'M~TAL
Ii:NotNllWS, SC!ltHTISTS ANP
CONIUi.:t'"JltT5
DRAFT
MbIc:Dfm Plmh!..lnc.
<Q.JS M~m Pl(wv. SUite 520
Fort MYl>rs., F\.33916
PtHml!(299} 33::1-1300
Fall' ()3!>l332-1789
WWW_pfmlfl,com
,~>
August 7, 2009
Mr. Darryl Rlchand, RLA
Project Manager
Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, Florida 34104
Re: Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Issue Project No. F,S3
Change Order
Dear Mr. Rlchand;
Malcolm Plrnle Is pleased to provide the Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes
(County) this requested scope of work for Additlonel Services for the above-re~renced project. The
purpose of this Scope Is to supplement Malcolm Plrnie's original services for the F.53 project under Work
Order MP'FT-l6S7-<lS-<l4 to replace a portion of the original project budget "xpended on SFWMD
permitting activities for the project, and to amend the eMisting project schedule and scope to InclUde
-~/ bidding assistance and construction Inspection services,
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The additional services requested for this project Include the following tasks:
TASK 100- Biddina Assistance
During the bid phase, Malcolm Pirnie wlllll$$ist the County by providing the following services:
· Malcolm Plrnie will conduct field worle and other investigations necessary to prepare bid
documents for the project, Including a scope of work, drawings, and olher Information (I.e.
construction cost estimate, etc,) sufficient for bidding purposes, Our subconsultant, Universal
Engineering Sciences, Inc, lUES) will prOVide geotechnical enslneerlng services needed for the
development of the bid drawlngs, Survey drawings for this project will be provided by the
County, and 1his scope assumes that the County will provide the lront,end documents for the bid
package, The bid documents will be submitted to the County lor review and approval prior to
inclusion in the bid package,
. Attending and participating In one (1) p......bld meeting.
. Review submitted bids and make recommendation of awand to the County. This scope assumes
that no more than ten (10) bids will be received lor the project,
,~.../
08/31/2009 03:02
16 , 1 A 9
18774686770
PROCESSOR
PAGE 05
~\\I( ()~,\
'IR'JI~
DRAFT
Mr. Darryt Rtchard. RLA
FOrest lakm: MSTU Bond Project No. F-S3
Chinse Or.r
AUB't.lfit 7. 2009
P.8<l2of.
~
-...-/
TASK 200 - Cnnstructlon Manaaement and lnsDQttion Servl~s
During the construction phase, Malcolm Plrnie will assist the County by prOViding the following services:
. Attending up to a total of three (3) meetings with the Contractor, County staff, the MSTU
committee, or other affected parties to discuss project Issues, (I.e, use of ROW, permits,
construction access, etc.), The Contractor will be responsible for obtalni'!ll all neces$Ory permits,
. Provide full-time construction inspection during the COUrse of the construction work for up to
thirty.five (35) WOrking days, For the purposes of this scope, full time is considered to be eight (8)
hours per Working day,
. Malcolm Plrnle will receive, review and retum to the Contractor the required Contractor
submittals along with two copies to the County, Malcolm Plrnle will prepare and maintain a log of
submittals to include submittal number, subject, and date received, reviewer, action taken and
date returned. Malcolm Pimie will review Or take other appropriate action with respect to
material and equipment submittals, Shop drawln8', samples and other data that the Contractor Is
required to submit, Review is to be lImited to conformance with the design concept of the
project and compliance with the information given In the Contract Documents, Such reviews or
other action shall not extend to means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures of
construction or safety program of the Contractor, Under this Task, Malcolm Plmle will revl~w up
to flve (5) Initial submIttals and up to two (2) re-submittals.
. Atter receipt of each application for payment from the Contractor, Malcolm Pirnie will provide
written recommendation to the County regarding payment to the Contractor. Under this $Cope,
Malcolm Plrnle will review up to six (6) pay requests and'up to two (2) re:submlttals.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
In addition to performing the work identified in this SCope, Malcolm Plrnle will perform Additional
Services as requested by the County. The need for such services may sri... from the completion of the
tasks identified above and cannot be fully defined at this time. However, It may be determined at some
future date that these additional services are necessary to thoroughly complete or implement the WOrk,
Examples of Additional Services may Include technical evaluations. preparation of reports, or other
activities deemed necessary by the County, It should be noted that the fees for these services have not
been Included in this scope. Such tasks and their level of effort, associated budgets and schedules will be
described in de1allln work authorlmtlons to be Issued at the time such tasks are requested by the County,
SCHEDULE
Malcolm Pirnie anticipates providing the profeS$ional services outlined above for a period of up to three
hundred twenty three (323) calendar days beyond the Original work order completion date of June 12,
2009, for an estimated completion date of April 30, 2010,
-/
. .
16 "1 A9
08/31/2008 03:02
18774686770
PROCESSOR
PAGE 06
,\1 \I( ()I.M
l'Il<'\lIE
nRAFT
Mr, o.rryl Richard. RlA
For&$t Lakes MSTU Bol"ld Project No. F"S3
Ch81'\1@ Order
AUIU$t 7. 200g
Pap3of3
~.
COMPENSATION
Malcolm Pirnie will provide this s<:ope of services under the terms and conditions of Contract 05.3657
Agreement for Project ManagemE!ht and Oversight Services for a lump sum fee of $66,500, The project
bUdget is based on the scope of wa.rk as provided and Is subject to cost adjustment resulting from any
change in the scope or schedule 0'. work.
Malcolm Plrnle appreciates this oPlfJortunlty to provide this requested scope of services, and will enjoy
working with the County on this Irn,portant project. If you have any questions regarding this scope or
need any additional information, pAease feel free to contact ChrlstopherTilman, P,E. or me at (239) 332,
1300,
Sincerely,
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC
-,'
Robert H, French, P.E.
Senior Associate
A403748.
08/31/2009 03:02
18774686770
16 I 1
A9
PROCESSOR
PAGE 07
~~?
',-,
D'XTA me,
CQNSULTINO
..&. ~, '.L .&.
. Planning . V!Nnll""tion
,C;vi/ Bngineering .S.....ylng & Mapping
August 18, 2009
Darryl Riohard
Collier County Department of Alternative Ttansportation Modes
Transportation Department
2885 South Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
In care oft
Christopher C. Tihnan, P ,E.
Malcolm Pirnie, mc.
SUbject:
Professional Service Proponl for Forest Lake. MSTU
(RWA, Ine. FileNo. 070190.00.00)
Dear Chris,
..-/
RW A, Inc. is pleased to submit the following proposal for land surveying services associated with
the developlnellt of the subject project. Outlined below is oUTwderstsl'itl;Tlg of the pl'Qject profile
and the asswnpti07Ul we have used to develop our scope and associated fees in response to your
request for proposal.
l'ROJECT PROFIT .1;
. Collier COllD1y Department of Alternative TrBnSportation Modes (Client) intends to
rehabilitate the existing storm drainage within the Quail Run Golf Course being a part of the
Forest Lakes MSW,
. The SUbject property is located within Section 14, Township 49 South, Range 26 East in
Collier County, Florida.
· The Client has issued a request for proposal including a preliminary scope of services, and has
asked the consultant to provide a proposal,
. The Client dll8ire$ to retain the services of RWA, Inc. (Conwltant) and pl'Qcced with the
Project as described within this proposal.
. The project is planned to be completed in three separate phases. One for each Scope item
ontlined below,
,_/
PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS
. The vertical datum will be collected in NGVD 1929.
08/31/2009 03:02
161 ~1
A9
18774585770
PROCESSOR
PAGE 08
.~
. Existing ell5ements of JrCcord within the property boundaries will not need to be vacated and/or
modified,
. The client will provicl.e R W A, !nc, with a three business day notice of any required field
surveying services. SUIIlh requests can be tnJUie via telephone, but must be followed up with a
fax or email verificatiOlll,
. This proposal includes, rPerforming all services described within on a one-fune basis,
SCOPE OF SERVICES
1.0 Stake Prooertv lin.. for Prooosed Wall
1.1. RWA shall. <<take the Property line, beginning near the GolfM:aintenance facility,
headed Weill! to the PI, then southerly along the C1Wtem boundary line, This is
approximatlely 3,600 If The line shall be staked allOO foot intca-vals, and the stakes
shall be in1ll:r-vi$ible. The pUIpolle for this staking shall be fur e1earing the property
line, and 1m,pection of potential obstacles,
1.2. Re-stake the property line, on 100 alations, for Use by the wall contractor.
,~.
2,0 Lake Bank Swvev' for Shoreline StahilizatiQ!).
2.1. Field stab> the end points, and in line PI's where pOBSible. For the proposed
bulkheads.
2.2, Perlbnn elross sections along tho proposed bulkhead. This shall be deteanined
based on d\Ie proximity of ex:isting buildings, distance frOlll the shoreline to the
bulkhead. :&1 tnost cues, two (2) to three (3) cross sectioos win be perfonned along
each propoaed bulk head section, certain bulk head sections may require more than
three (3) orDSS sections. This shall be inclusive oflocationa of the ne8J'est point on
an existing .structure, top ofban]c:, bottom elevation along the proposed bulk head,
2,3, Gather data consistent with a profile along the proposed bulk head to det.emrine the
depth akmg; the wall section,
2.4. Perllmn 8-.t lake bottom probes. This shall be done with a long metal rod. snd
the intent . to determine if a noticeable rock layer may lie below the bulk head
line, This is not intended to replace or supplement soils borings; l'ather an
enq>lol'atory test.
3.0 Sidewalk Design Survev
3.1. RWA, Inc.sbaU perform a design survey along the perimeter of the Forest Lakes
Community. Specifically, along Farest Lakes and Woodahire Boulevards, The
Survey limits shall be up to 20 feet outside of the existing edge of pavement, and
shall be iIoolusive of existing utilities, drainage structure or fCBtUl'es, trees,
buildings, parldng 8J'eas, or any other possible obstruction to placing a sidewalk.
3.2. RWA,!no. IIhall gather C10ss sections on 100 foot stations, to determine the Cl'08S
, slope of tho Cldsting paved roadway. This shall also extend out up to 20" beyond
the edge of pavement.
Page 2 on
*.
16 Pi fA 9
08/31/2009 03:02
18774686770
PROCESSOR
PAGE 09
.~
4,0 R!!imbursable&nenaes
4. L Expenses for blueprints, reproduction services, OVernight or expre5s delivery
serviceSl.and vehicle mileage, shsll be reimbursable to R W A, Inc.
J>ROFESRTONAL Il'F.ll.VICE FEES
The profe5aional serviCe fee estimates for the associated scope of servioes are listed billow,
Scone of SemeN Ell! ~
LO Stake Property Line $ 4,000.00 TIM/E
2.0 Lake Stabilization Survey $ 8,500,00 T/MJE
3,0 Sidewalk Desig1lll Survey :& 13.400.00 1'1MIE
Total $ $15,900.00
4,0 Reimbursable Bltpenses $ 300,00 TIMJE
Note: TIM/E denotes Tlfme, Material and Expel/se billing category, Stated Fee is an e,;timate only;
client will only be billed 101' actual how'ly costs related to bidlvidllal surveylllg $enJlcf!.Y.
-"..../
Exchlded Servle~
The prokssional services to be provided by the Con..ultant are limited to those described in the
Scope of Services. AU "ther services are specifically excluded. Listed below are excluded
services that may be I't:lqll:i1ed or desired by the Client:
. Construction Layowt Services
. COIl$etvation Easwment Description..
and Sketches
. Easenlent V ilcatioms
. FEMA Elevation Cel1ificates
· Specisl Purpose Surveys
Thank you for the opp.artunity to submit this professional service proposal, Please call if you
have any questions. V\l\e wiIllonk forward to hearing back from you soon,
Sincerely,
/JJ~
MichaelA. Ward,PIS
Project Manager
Ilnc!.: Rate Code and Fee Schedule
SlIIudml Bnsino... Teuns and Cnudiliona
Billing Address lntOKl'nlttion
:Page 3 of 3
161t~
A9
08/31/2009 03:02
18774585770
PROCESSOR
PAGE 10
\\AICOL \1
PIRi\'IF
IHDlIIINblim ENVIROHMi:NTAL
D1G1,.Ebl, SCI!:NTI$TS AND
CONSULT AHTf;
Mah::Q!m Pirnie, tnc,
431S Metro Pkwy, SWt@520
Fort Myers, Fl33916
f'hOrle (2391 332.1300
Fax (23Sl) 332--17B9
www.plrnie.COm
"---"
July 30, 2009
Mr. Darryl Ridlard, RlA
Project Man"ller
Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, Florida 34104
Re: Forest lakes MSTU
CMA Services
Dear Mr, Richard:
...../
Malcolm Pirnie has been pleased to provide the Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation
Modes (Department) CMA services for the Forest lakes MSTU sl..-ce February 2007, and we would like to
continue providing these services to the County, Under this scape, Malcolm Pmie will continue to
function as an extension of the Department's existing staff, aSsislling with the IIlIinagement of the day'to-
day aspects of MSTU projects while keeping the Department int~rated in t.... decisIOn-making processes.
CMA services will vary depending on the nature and complexity<Jf each project, but generally include the
following:
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The services for this project include the following tasks:
TASK 050 - Proiect Mana~ement
This task Includes the work effort required for project planninc. llIdmlnistration,. and coordination, Specific
activities Included in this task include the following:
. Managing and coordinating project activities and field pelSClllnel to control costs and maintain the
project schedule,
· Maintaining project flies and data systems
· Preparing monthly invoices
. Providing internal quality control
. Internal and external project-related communications
1 6 I tI
A9
08/31/2009 03:02
18774686770
PROCESSOR
PAGE 11
\\,\1 ( Ot,\!
)If;: ~"If::
Mr. ~rryJ Richard, RLA
Forest Lak4!!!$ MSTU CMA ServlC4!!!!i
July 30. 2009
Page 2 of3
'.-.-J"
TASK 100 - General Consulti"" Services
Under this task, Malcolm Plrnle will provide the Oepaltment and the MSTU Committee with experienced
professional consultants that will provide technical assistance and engineering resources on an as-needed
basis. Such assistance may include project planning, budgeting, revieWing documents, and other services
as requested by the County.
TASK 200 - MSTU Meetintm
Under this task, Malcolm Pirnie will prepare for and attend up 10 twelve (12) meetings with County staft.
stakeholders and/or the MSTU Advisory Board to review project statuses and address outstanding Issues.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
,j
In addition to performing the work Identified in this SCOpe, Malcolm Pimie will perform Additional
Services as requested by the County. The need for such services may arise from the completion of the
ta:sks 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 Pimle anticipates prOViding the professional services outlined above for a period of up to one (1)
year after Notice to Proceed or until the total contract amount is invoiced, The scope and schedule of
services provided in each task above Is dependent on the level of services requested by the County and
are subject to adjustment during the course of the project so as not to exceed the compensation amount
shown below.
COMPENSATION
Malcolm Pirnie will provide this scope of services under the terms and conditions of Contract 05-3657
Agreement for Project Management and Oversight Services for a lump sum fee of $40,000. 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 that would exceed the total lump Sum fee shown above,
16 III 'A 9
08/31/2009 03:02
18774585770
PROCESSOR
PAGE 12
\\\I( O!.,\l
'IRI\;/t
Mr. Oanyl RIchard, RLA
Forest lilk@s MSTU CMA Services
July 30, 2009
Page 3 of 3
--.-""
Malcolm Plrnie 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 ChrlstopherTllman, P,E, or me at (239) 332-
1300,
Sincerely,
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
~+J.~~
Robert H, French, P,E,
Senior Associate
A403748
-~....,.../.
..~
.~.
~~
1611 A9
PAGE 13
08/31/2009 03:02
18774585770
PROCESSOR
.,
16 I 1 I~ 10/
February 4, 2008
RECEIVED
SEP 2 2 2009
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTE~iala
ADVISORY COMMITTEE HHala~ng (/
en",
Coyle =- -:1'(110';
Coletta
Naples, Florida, February 4, 2008
~oard of County Commissioners
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Golden Gate Community
Center Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in
Conference Room "c" of the Golden Gate Community Center, 4701 Golden
Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE CHAIR:
Jim Klug
Ernie Bretzmann
Bill Arthur
Vicki Clavelo
Kaydee Tuff
ALSO PRESENT: Ellen R. Barkin, Community Center Supervisor
_.~
~loh.1/DCJ
.nt.I~I( l)4 to
, pi..
16 11
AID
February 4, 2008
I. Call to Order
The Meeting was called to order at 6:02 PM by Chairman Jim Klug,
II. Approval of Aeenda
Bill Arlhur moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Vicki Clavelo.
Carried unanimously, 5-0.
III. Approval of Meetine Minutes
Bill Arlhur moved to approve the Minutes of the January 7, 2008 meeting as submitted.
Second by Ernie Bretzmann. Carried unanimously, 5-0.
IV. Old Business
A. Kitchen Hood Update
. Work has been completed,
· Hood was inspected by the Fire Marshall and has been connected to the alarm
· The County's Facilities Management Office will be asked to inspect it
(The Board members decided to personally inspect the hood and the meeting moved
to the kitchen.)
· Bill Arthur was commended for his efforts in monitoring the installation and for
saving the Community Center approximately $10,000 in fees,
B. Metro PCS Proposal
A proposed lease, drafted by the County Attorney's office, was distributed,
. 5- year term
· Initial rent of $35,000 with a 4% increase for each year
. Contract ends in 2012
· Amount of distribution to Golden Gate Community Center has not been defined
(Possible 60/40 split with County)
Upon questioning from the Board, it was noted that other parks have similar
arrangements and have had no complaints regarding interference,
C. Proposed Changes to Committee
An email had been sent to the previous BCC Chairman regarding the Board's
proposed changes concerning term length and number of members.
The Revised Guidelines and Rules, which had been approved by the Board in March,
2007, were amended to include the addition of an Alternate,
Bill Arlhur moved to amend the Guidelines to include the appointment of an
Alternate. Second by Ernie Bretzmann. Carried unanimously, 5-0.
Ellen Barkin will draft a cover letter to accompany the revised Guidelines to be
presented to the BCC for their approvaL
The following language was suggested to amend the Guidelines:
"The Board may choose to recommend appointment of an Alternate to the Golden
Gate Community Center Advisory Board. The Alternate would be subject to the
2
~(,j
16 Ip!lary 410J 0
same attendance requirements and rules governing the responsibilities of the
Board Members, The Alternate will only vote in the absence of a Board Member, "
Chairman Klug moved to approve the language to amend the Guidelines.
Second by Bill Arthur. Carried unanimously, 5-0.
The Amended Guidelines, together with a cover letter signed by Chairman Klug, will
be sent to Sue Filson, BCC Executive Manager, for presentation to the BCe.
V. New Business
A. Member Goals for 2008
Goals achieved:
. Kitchen hood has been installed
. Appointment of an Alternate will be recommended to the BCC for approval
2008 Goals:
. To continue to improve bandstand to make it more user friendly for easier
scheduling of concerts and events
. To increase revenue to maintain programs that are not revenue positive
. To maintain integrity and quality of current programs
. To become more self-sufficient (generate revenue, i,e., Metro PSC tower)
. To ensure special taxing district is run as a business
. Long-term goal: to become a MSTU-B and exempt from legislative cuts
MSTU-B is new - Golden Gate may be eligible for conversion
. To maintain the current programs
. To encourage more community participation
. To eliminate orange fence and plant a hedge in its place
Ellen Barkin will email the Goals to the Board members to prioritize, and
compile rankings for the next meeting.
B. January/February Events
· Bridge Tournament - January 24 - considering changing to a "pot-luck" format-
no charge for admission, but no provisions provided by Community Center
· BMX Races - two were held with a total of 50 participants
· "Cool Cruisers Annual Car Show" - January 26th - 250 cars in show - have not
yet received their donation
· "Bike Fest" - February 9th and 10th - projecting 40 vendors attending for
Saturday and Sunday; live entertainment will be featured
. "Senior Expo" - February 13th - 10:00 to 1:00 PM
C. January Budget Report
The revenue is slightly less than last year's figures, It was noted the funds from the Ad
Valorum taxes are slow in coming because residents are apparently waiting until the last
minute to pay,
Chairman KIug requested a comparison between actual revenue received and budget on
a monthly basis, as well as the year-to-date information,
3
16 LrlY4,2081 0
VI. Members Comments
None
The next meeting is Monday, March 3, 2008.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the Meeting was adjourned by
order of the Chairman at 7:25 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY
CENTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE
W. James Klug, Chairman
These Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee Chair on
presented , or as amended
, as
4
(fA -
, Fiala r:L--
Halas --(
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
RECEIVE016 I 1 - AI.11 v'
SEP 2 f 2009
November LV, 2008
Boald of County Commissioners
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD
Naples, Florida, November 20, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory
Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met
on this date at 6:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F",
3rd Floor, Collier County Government Center, Naples, Florida with the following
members present:
Chairman: Manuel Gonzalez
Luis Alejandro Bernal
Raymond Cabral
David Correa (Excused),
Renato F. Fernandez
_Valar~t: D. Maxwell
Cosme Perez
__-_____u . ErnestqYelasquez (Excused)
. '-, . " ',' ,
ALSO PRESENT:
Mike Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager
Mise, Cotre5:
0at8:[b/21!09:
IlImIt. IleIU)~ \ \
Copies to:
1611 All
November 20,2008 I
I. Introduction
A. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Acting Chainnan Manuel Gonzalez at 6:05 PM
A quorum was established.
B. Approval of the October 23,2008 HAAB Meeting Minutes
Cosme Perez moved to approve the Minutes as submitted. Second by Renato Fernandez.
Carried unanimously, 5-0
Luis Alejandro Bernal arrives - 6:10 PM
II. Old Business
A. Law Enforcement Report - Manny Gonzalez stated the Guest Speaker, David
Schimmel will give his presentation to the Committee fIrst and then Law Enforcement
Report will follow,
III. New Business
Mental Health Services in Collier County - David Schimmel, CEO of
David Lawrence Center gave a presentation on mental health services available.
>- I in 4 Collier County citizens will suffer from mental health,
>- I in 10 Collier County citizens are chemically dependent.
>- Last year the Center served over 15,000 Collier County citizens,
>- 22% of the David Lawrence Center Staff are Hispanic.
>- lout of 20 people in Collier County on a Friday night are driving while under the
influence of alcohoL
>- As economic climate worsens the demand for assistance rises.
Services are provide<;l to citizens on the ability to pay basis with 50 different programs
working to make the patient independent. .
>- Crisis Services in Golden Gate
>- Outpatient Services--~~_...
>- Vocational Program
>- Some Affordable Housing available
6000 children are treated each year at the Center for different reasons, The prevalent
reasons are:
>- Family Problems
>- Attention DefIcit Disorder
>- School Problems
>- Chemical Dependency
>- Prescription Drugs Abuse
>- Illegal Drugs
2
1611All
November 20. 2008
The David Lawrence Center works with the Court System to work intervention with
individuals so those individuals do not end up lost in the system, Institutional costs per
patient are approximately $140,000 per year, Most mental health care is provided by the
family physician. Of the 15,000 patients that will be seen in a year at The David Lawrence
Center, only 1,000 will have a serious illness, The stigma of mental health is a huge
challenge, especially among the male Hispanic Community.
Mr. Schimmel answered the following questions:
Q. What causes ADH?
A, A Bio chemical imbalance, brain disorder and is frequently misdiagnosed. It is a
legitimate disease not caused by lack of love or broken home, etc.
Q. Is ADH hereditary?
A. There is a hereditary component but it doesn't mean it will happen IOO% of the time.
Q. What percentage is from the Hispanic population?
A. 20% are Hispanic.
Q. Is there a profile for ADH in the Hispanic population?
A. No, it effects the whole general population
Q. Can the David Lawrence Center handle more patients?
A. Yes, they are just scratching the surface in Collier County, There is currently a waiting
list for Drug and Alcohol factors. They are trying to improve service and encourage
referrals and fund raising.
Q. How does the David Lawrence Center measure success?
A, In order to receive funds from the State, they have to demonstrate the outcome with
each patient, Internally the Center has 27 tools to measure their level of success,
Customer satisfaction, respect and return for treatment are huge indications,
Q. How to direct the parents tQ tmd a solution
~. _. A'cAny parenLcanbring their, child and get a free assesslllent to.the Center. The issue is
"can" the child be brought to the Center.
Law Enforcement Report - Mannv Gonzalez - Continued
Manny Gonzalez enlightens the Committee on the responsibilities of the Deputies. He
began by reciting the Sheriffs' Office Mission Statement - The Duty of the Collier
County Sherifft Office is to Preserve and Protect the Lives, Property and Constitutional
Guarantee of All Persons.
He reported on the Sheriffs Patrol Districts located in Collier County, the number of
calls per year for each District and the responsibilities of the Patrol Divisions,
)>- They average is 500 calls a day in the busier District, down to 150 calls a day in
the smaller Districts,
3
16 1',1 A 11
November 20, 2008
~ Collier County has one of the lowest crime rates in the State of Florida,
~ They patrol the foreclosure areas more frequently,
~ There are over 500 foreclosures in Golden Gate and 5,000 in the Estates.
~ Deputies are expected to get involved in Community affairs
~ Deputies are responsible for the vehicle they patrol in and take the vehicle home
for that reason,
~ Some additional duties include crime scenes, dignitaries and traffic crossings,
Discussion ensued on the shooting of a young Hispanic male with a pellet gun off
Bayshore Drive and the Sheriff's office not disclosing details, Manny stated he would
see what information is available, He also pointed out whenever there is an ongoing
investigation; protocol is not to release any information,
Cosme Perez asked what his group can do to assist with the foreclosure problems,
Manny Gonzalez encouraged Cosme Perez to call Judy Miller, Assistant to Captain
Tom Davis at 239-530-5660 or Captain Mark Baker at 239-793-9274 and let them
know you are willing to work with them.
Valeree Maxwell suggested using the youth on probation and high school students to
clean up the abandoned houses. There are many youths on probation and want to get
involved. lout of 4 kids are on probation and they cannot get off probation until
they fulfill a contract per court order.
Mike Sheffield responded abandoned houses are private property, The County cannot
start working on these properties, The County is working with Law Enforcement to force
the banks and landlords to comply with Code Enforcement The County will hire a
Contractor to maintain the property if the owner does not comply with Code
Enforcement He lj1entioned a non-profit organization that purchased 3-homes in
foreclosure and then fix them up to selL Mike stated he would find out if that
organization is looking for volunteers.
IV. Comments! Announcements
A. No appliGations were received for the cU1TentHAAB.~acancy, .The v~call,gy h,as
therefore been re-advertised, Applications are due by 'November 27,2008. .
Mike Sheffield stated if the Advisory Board is short a position, there would still
be a quorum. Manny Gonzalez and Cosme Perez terms will expire in June 2009,
Manny Gonzalez gave the following advice and asked the Committee to share with
their friends and family.
If someone is followed by a Deputy and he or she is signaling you to pull over with
flashing lights:
~ Do not place that Deputy in a dangerous position; go to a lighted spot before
stopping.
~ Before you stop, the Deputy will have your registration information.
4
16 I; I-A 11
November 20, 2008
};> The Deputy will feel threatened if there is more than one person in the car,
};> Do not have an attitude, Be polite,
};> Before the Deputy comes up to you, he will check the trunk to make sure it is
secure and there is no one going to come up behind him.
};> Know the Deputy will stand behind the drivers' door and then lean over and ask
for the drivers' license, registration and insurance.
};> The Sheriff's Office has been receiving complaints from naturalize or non-
citizens who do not know these procedures and do not speak English,
All the complaints are due to lack of understanding,
Cosme Perez announced a new organization; Casa Hispana plans to hold a press
conference on January 14,2009 for an event that will be held on January 22,
2009 at the Golden Gate Community Center from 6-9 PM.
V. Public Comment - None,
VI. Next Meetinl!:: January 22, 2009
\~
There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjourned by
order ofthe Acting Chairman at 7:23 P.M.
COLLIER COUNTY HISPANIC AFFAIRS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
-,,-c.
~
These Minutes were a02roved by the Board/Committee on
as presented ."...,- or as amended ,
/ /;J~ J n 7
5
RECEIVED
SEP 1 6 2009
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
1611
AIZV
June 17, 2009
Board of County eonvnlSSk>nelS
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CO IER COUNTY
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESER ATION BOARD
Naples, Florida, June 17,2009
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 8:45 A,M, in REGULAR
SESSION at the collier County Community Development Services Division
Conference room #609, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Patricia Huff
Pam Brown (absent)
William Dempsey (excused)
Sharon Kenny (absent)
Elizabeth Perdichizzi
Rich Taylor
Craig Woodward
ALSO PRESENT: Melissa Zone, Principal Planner, Zoning Dept.
Cheri Rollins, Administrative Secretary
Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney
1
Mile, Cones:
Date: lb I ~1 b
lie' lloI~l2
1611
A12
June 17, 2009
I. Roll Calli Attendance:
Chairman Patty Huff called the meeting to order at 9: 15 A.M,
Roll Call was taken and a quorum established,
II. Addenda to the Agenda:
ADD: Under Department of Zoning & Land Development Review Report
AuthoriZJllion of Mileage Re-imbursement
ADD: Under Old Business - Discussion on Mar-Good
Discussion on Pam Brown's Attendance
ADD: Under New Business -- Review of Mission Statement
Craig Woodward moved to approve the Addenda to the Agenda items. Second by
Betsy Perdichizzi. Carried unanimously, 4-0.
m. Approval of the Agenda
Betsy Perdichiui moved to recommend approval of the Agenda, as amended.
Second by Rich Taylor. Carried unanimously, 4-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes: April 15, 2009 (No meeting was held in May)
Betsy Perdichizzi moved to recommend approval of the minutes of April 15, 2007,
as presented. Second by Rich Taylor. Carried unanimously, 4-0.
V. Department of Zoning & Land Development Review Report:
A. Authorization of Mileage Re-imbursement (handout)
Melissa Zone reviewed the instruction sheet for Advisory Board Member
Mileage Reimbursement, reminding everyone reimbursement was only for
more than 20 roundtrip travel miles and applies to any travel related to their
service on behalf of the Historical Archaeological Preservation Advisory
Board activities,
VI. Old Business:
A. Discussion on Mar-Good
Melissa Zone gave a brief overview of the variance and re-zone request being
presented to the Planning Commission on July 18, 2009 which she had e-mailed
along with Staff's Reports and Recommendations to each HAPB Member,
Some questions arose on what HAPB had recommended and agreed to at their
January 21 ,t meeting with Parks & Recreation regarding the various cottages to be
preserved for formal Historic Designation, Their degree of termite damage and
deterioration and prospect for restoration was to be brought before the HAPB for
their recommendation to--inc1ude in the Historic Designation, demolish, preserve
or dispose of --prior to movingforward with the variance and rezone request.
Melissa Zone was called to another meeting at 9:24 am.
Craig Woodward pointed out that according to the maps provided in the Petition
2
1611
A12
June 17, 2009
it appeared that both of the cisterns, the main building and most of the cottage
buildings would be included in the preserved lands.
Steve Williams cautioned those who attend the Planning Commission meeting and
plan to speak as a member of the HAPB, that only one member should speak and
the subject could not be discussed with another member under the Sunshine Laws
as that would constitute an ul1J'loticed meeting.
E. Discussion of Pam Brown's Attendance
The HAPB members reviewed the attendance requirements for Advisory Board
meetings and discussed the many attempts to contact Ms Brown regarding her
intentions to attend and participate on the HAPE. Following discussion, the
Members instructed staff to send a letter by Certified mail requesting her response.
Follow up to that response will be determined at the September meeting.
C. Historic Booklet
Chairman Patty Huff led the discussion regarding the compilation of the
Historic Booklet project She passed around a sample of the updated Everglades
Historical Society Booklet as a sample, She asked everyone to provide her with
those sites and buildings of historical significance to include in the booklet
Everglades Historical Society will pay for the first 100 copies, A notation that
they are the sponsors will be on the back and she has a source for a Publisher.
Betsy Perdiehizzi commented that funding will be forthcoming once the
Booklet is in distribution, and on the web-site,
Craig Woodward agreed it was a good beginning and to get it finished and
on the website, Copies of the mock-up will be distributed through the various
Museum and Historical-based groups to generated funding,
Each member will send their site and structure information to Chairman Huff.
VII. New Business
A. Mission Statement
Chairman Patty Huff read from the Mission Statement of the Historical
Archaeological Preservation Board to reinforce the purpose and powers open
to the Board. She had questions as to what degree of pro-activeness would the
Board care to pursue with various issues.
B. Summer Break
After a brief discussion it was decided not to meet in July and August Should
the need arise, a special meeting could be held upon proper notice. The
Mock-up for the booklet will be done by the September meeting,
Craig Woodward moved to have a summer recess in July and August and
reconvene the HAPB scheduled meetings on September 16,2009. Second
by Rich Taylor. Carried unanimously, 4-0.
3
I
I
VIII. Public Comments: None
1611 A12
June 17, 2009
IX. Board Member Announcements
Craig Woodward asked about the Keewaydin Club, Otter Mound and, given the
interest in genealogy, cemeteries being featured in the Historic Booklet
He reported on the progress at Marco Island Historical Museum, A meeting held
there in the fall was suggested, The opening is planned for February, 2010, Phase
Two of the project will be to fill it with exhibits, a 5-10 year endeavor.
Betsy Perdichizzi mentioned updating the previously assembled sites to see if they
are still open to the public and checking with private owners for their consent to
being listed, She suggested offering a Cemetery Tours feature.
Cheri Rollins stated she will put the completed Booklet on the internet so the
public will be able to go online to the interactive site on the County's web-site.
Chairman Patty Huff distributed Friends of the Museum afthe Everglades
Brochures featuring the Museum Tours and Artists Exhibits scheduled for the
2009-2010 season, including dates and costs. Ibis will be a new venture for
Friends of the Museum of the Everglades, She requested lists of Historical groups
to send the notices to,
The HAPB Members expressed interest in field trips for all Collier
County Museums to learn about Florida History.
The next scheduled meeting wUI be held on Wednesday September 16, 2009 in Room
#609 Collier County Development Services Division, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order ofthe chair at 10:00 A.M.
I
I
I
I
I
These minutes' approved by the Board/Committee on
or as amended
mSTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL
PRESERV A nON BOARD
V~~M
Chairman, Patty Huff
'1-/6- ~,
,
as presented
4
<
1 6 I l'
A13
IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
September 23, 2009
AGENDA
I. Call Meeting to Order
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes - August 26, 2009
V. Transportation Services Report
A. Budget - Caroline Soto
B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard
VI. Transportation Maintenance Report - ClM
VIII. landscape Architects Report
A Maintenance Report- JRL Design
VIII. Community Redevelopment Agency
A Update on RWAlLDI
IX. Code Enforcement Report - Weldon Walker
X. Old Business
A Main Street Pedestrian Zoning-Hwy29 and Loop Rd,- Darryl Richard
XI. New Business
XII. Public Comment
XIII. Adjournment
The next meeting is October 28, 2009 at 4:30 p.m,
Immokalee Community Park
321 First Street South,
Immokalee, FL
Mise, Corres:
:j
Copies to:
RECEIVED
SEP 2 8 2009
16~lt~Al3
Fbla -.DE~,
Halas _.':;~:4LIJ1J,{
HEinning..:;r::~
Coyle _._t,-~
CClletta _...:I4liL..
./
. ,
r ommissioners
Board of CountV -'
IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION
M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTE~:
August 26, 2009
Minutes
I. The meeting was called to order by Cherryle Thomas at 4:40 p.m.
A quorum was established.
II. Attendance
Members: William Deyo, Cherryle Thomas, Lucy Ortiz, Andrea Halman (via
conference call), Carrie Williams (Excused)
County: Darryl Richard - Project Manger, Tessie Sillery-Operations Coordinator,
Caroline Soto - Budget Analyst
Others: Richard Tindell-JRL, Jim Fritchey-Commercial Land Maintenance, Brad
Muckel-CRA, Darlene Lafferty-Mancan
William Deyo moved to accept Andrea Ha/man's conference call for the
meeting (due to extenuating circumstances.) Second by Lucy Ortiz.
Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
III. Approval of Agenda
Lucy Ortiz moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second by William
Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes: June 24, 2009
Lucy Ortiz moved to approve the June 24, 2009 minutes as submitted.
Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
V. Transportation Services Report
A. Budget - Caroline Soto
Budget was distributed and the following items were reviewed. (See
attached)
· Collected Ad valorem Tax $285,432.57
· Available Improvements General $177,319.06
· Mancan P,O. increase is required Mile, Collet:
B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard submitted the folldlllli:tsL__,
proposals. (See attachments)
Item #:___
1
,... -"";"'.7 t,~;'
o Wausau Tile
)) $730,OO-replace (8) Trash receptacle lids (blue) on 1st St.
161tTt A13
William Deyo moved to approve Wausau Tile bid for $80.00 per can with
a total of $730.00. Second by Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried unanimously
4-0.
It was noted trash receptacle lids will be received in 4-6 weeks.
o FEI Naples Waterworks
)) (19) Grate covers for bulb outs-$851.50
)) Quote is for materials
William Deyo moved to approve the bid from FEI for $851.50 for the bulb
out grates. Second by Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
o Lykins Siantek. Inc.
)) Refurbish (22) Dedication placards on bulb outs-$1647.80
)) Etching is no longer visible
)) Quote includes
- Removal of placard
- Pressure wash
- Acid clean the signs
- Repaint the lettering
- Apply protective sealant
)) Recommended dedicating future funds to maintain
- Drain covers
- Dedication signs
Lucy Ortiz moved to approve (monies) up to $1,700.00 to repaint and
sealing the donor plaques. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried
unanimously 4-0.
o JRL Desian Studios (3) proposals
)) 1) Change order request for Base Services-$10, 000. 00
William Deyo moved to approve an additional $10,000.00 for Base
Services by JRL. Second by Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried unanimously
4-0.
)) 2) Main Street median lnigation refurbishment-$9,988.00
- Existing drip line has deteriorated
- lnigation refurbishment is high priority item
- Design and Construction Inspection time is included in the
proposal
William Deyo moved to approve the bid not to exceed $10,000.00 for the
design of the new irrigation system, to start immediately. Second by
Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
2
-
161 f'
A13
>> 3) Design Fee to revamp 1st Street Irrigation (from Seminole Casino
to Main Street)-$12,000.00
- Underground irrigation piping is non-existent
- The Irrigation systems battery powered alann is
unpredictable and requires an updated central controller
Lucy Ortiz moved to approve $12,000.00 for the design of 1st Street
irrigation system. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried
unanimously 4-0.
Tessie Sillery announced Cherryle Thomas has reapplied to serve on the
Immokalee Beautification Committee,
William Deyo moved to accept Cherryle Thomas for a second term.
Second by Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
William Deyo left the meeting at 5:10 p,m.
Cherryle Thomas stated only discussions could be held with no quorum established.
C. Pathways-David Buchheit - None
VI. Transportation Maintenance Report-ClM - None
VII. landscape Architects Report
A. Maintenance Report - JRl (See attached)
Richard Tindell reviewed photographs and gave additional information: (See
attached)
o Valve box filters require refurbishing (1)
o leaning tree is a hazard (a)
o Recommended mowing schedule every 2 weeks for Bahia
o Vehicle damage on 1st Street (1st median north end of Carver and
Eustes)
o Suggested repair of sunken pavers on Main Street prior to festival
Darryl Richard requested the sunken pavers be repaired by ClM prior to
September 17, 2009.
Darryl Richard requested Immokalee Committee Members attend the following
meetings (pertaining to Grant Funds.) He noted the meeting schedules are
posted on the County website:
. PAC (Pathways Advisory Committee)
. CAC (Citizens Advisory Committee)
. TAC (Technical Advisory Committee)
VIII. Community Redevelopment Agency
A. Update on RWAllDI
Cherryle Thomas requested status from CRA Staff on Edgerrin James signs.
IX. Code Enforcement Report - Weldon Walker-None
3
X.
Old Business
A. Main Street Pedestrian Zoning - HWY29 and Loop Rd. - Darryl Richard
None
1611A13
"
XI. New Business - None
XII. Public Comment - None
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 5:34 PM.
Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee
~
These minutes approved by the Committee on cr. d3' 0 C}
as presented X or amended
The next regularly scheduled meeting is September 23, 2009 4:30 p.m.
At the Immokalee Community Park
321 First Street South, Immokalee, FL
4
,tf'?.;-~ ,
~, 1 7.,
j~'j .I!. .,
16 , if
IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
August 26, 2009
SUMMARY OF MINUTES AND MOTIONS
II. Attendance
Members: William Deyo, Cherryle Thomas, Lucy Ortiz, Andrea Halman
(via conference call), Carrie Williams (Excused)
County: Darryl Richard - Project Manger, Tessie Sillery-Operations
Coordinator, Caroline Soto - Budget Analyst
Others: Richard Tindell-JRL, Jim Fritchey-Commercial Land
Maintenance, Brad Muckel-CRA, Darlene Lafferty-Mancan
William Deyo moved to accept Andrea Halman's conference call for
the meeting (due to extenuating circumstances.) Second by Lucy
Ortiz. Motion carried unanimously 3-0.
III. Approval of Agenda
Lucy Ortiz moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second by
William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously 3-D.
IV. Approval of Minutes: June 24, 2009
Lucy Ortiz moved to approve the June 24, 2009 minutes as
submitted. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried unanimously
3-0.
V. Transportation Services Report
B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard submitted the following
proposals. (See attachments)
o Wausau Tile-$730.00-replace (8) Trash receptacle lids on 1st St.
William Deyo moved to approve Wausau Tile bid for $80.00 per
can with a total of $730.00. Second by Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried
unanimously
4-0.
o FEI Naples Waterworks-(19) Grate covers for bulb outs-$851.50
William Deyo moved to approve the bid from FEI for $851.50 for
the bulb out grates. Second by Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried
unanimously 4-0.
r
16 IF'! A i3
o Lvkins Siontek. Inc.-Refurbish (22) Dedication placards on bulb
outs-$1647.80
Lucy Ortiz moved to approve (monies) up to $1,700.00 to repaint
and sealing the donor plaques. Second by William Deyo. Motion
carried unanimously 4-0.
o JRL Desion Studios (3) proposals
>) 1) Change order request for Base Services-$10, 000. 00
William Deyo moved to approve an additional $10,000.00 for Base
Services by JRL. Second by Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried
unanimously
4-0.
)) 2) Main Street median Irrigation refurbishment-$9,988.00
William Deyo moved to approve the bid not to exceed $10,000.00
for the design of the new Irrigation system, to start Immediately.
Second by Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
)) 3) Design Fee to revamp 1st Street Irrigation (from Seminole
Casino to Main Street)-$12,000.00
Lucy Ortiz moved to approve $12,000.00 for the design of 1st
Street irrigation system. Second by William Deyo. Motion carried
unanimously 4-0.
Tessie Sillery announced Cherryle Thomas has reapplied to serve on
the Immokalee Beautification Committee.
William Deyo moved to accept Cherry Ie Thomas for a second
term. Second by Lucy Ortiz. Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
)..
16 1'1 'A 1 3
Date: 8/26/2009
Estimate #: 3984
5935 Taylor Rd.
Naples FL. 34109
PHONE 239-777-
FAX 239-591-3940
Created By:
Tony Lykins
239-777-6201
tony@lykins-sI9ntek.com Estimatel Contract
Prepared By Lykins Signtek, Inc. for : Collier County dept. of alternative
Address: 2885 Horseshe Dr. S Naples FL 34104
To: Darryl Richard Phone:
From: Tony Lykins Fax:
Quote Repair, Refurbish Immokalee Dedication Signs
252-5775
252-6219
Item Description
1} Remove Immokalee Dedication brick plaque signs,
pressure wash, acid clean, repaint copy area, seal
brick back with clear or pigmented colored sealer.
Reinstall brick plaques - same.
Quantity
22
@ Price
$74.90 $1,647.80
Sub Total: $1,647.80
Sales $0.00
Total: $1,647.80
**NOTE : Lykins Signtek will take due care but will not be responsible if Dedication
brick plaques crack while bolts are being removed. If additional time is required in the
removal and re-installation the additional time necessary will be discussed with
darryl before proceeding any further with job.
Signs are custom produced to your specifications.
All orders of $250.00 or less require pre-payment unless prior credit arrangements are
I accept the above proposal and agree to pay for said work promptly upon completion of same.
Authorized Signature:
Date:
Deposit Amount:
CHECKlCC #
Terms aod Conditions:
Prices on this contract are valid for 30 days.
50% deposit is required to commence and the balance is due upon completion
Signing of this document constitutes a legal and binding contract between parties named on tbis agreement.
Cwtomer is responsible for landscape amenities within install area or as required for permitting
Goods sold remain the property of seller until paid in full.
Customer agrees to provide necessary information to obtain permit, electrical supply to sign or fixture location, and/or
provide color and logo information where specified.
Customer is responsible for any cap rock, lime rock or unforeseen digging conditions
1.5 % Montbly Late Fee applied to all past due invoices
Warranties:
Workmanship: All signs or fixtures fabricated and installed by Lykins Signtek and its affiliates are warranted against
defects in material and workmanship for one year, parts and labor.
.
Page 1 of 1
-
1611
A13
~ STUDIOS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLANNING OESIGN
John P. Ribes, FASLA
Richard T. Tindell, ASLA
Andrew D. Eisele, ASLA
August 15, 2009
Immokalee M.S.T.U.
Work Order #
RFP/BID # 08-5060
To : Darryl Richard, Project Manager
Re : Irrigation Work Order - First Street Irrigation System
As per your request an authorization by the Immokalee MSTU Board at their June
'09 meeting JRL Design Studios submits the following proposal of services:
Scope of services
Prepare a modified irrigation design for the median only for First Street from
Main Street to the Seminole Casino. The proposed irrigation system shall utilize the
existing water supply, sleeves and valves as feasible. The existing controller shall be
evaluated for capacity and operational status.
First Street Irrigation System
Task I - Inventory & Analysis of Existing First Street System
Task 2 - 60% Irrigation Design (Include Base Production)
Task 3 -100% Bid Documents and Specifications
Task 4 - Bidding Assistance & Project Administration
Task 5 - Construction Engineering Inspections (CEI)
(Site Install Observations, Reports, and As Built Documents Assistance)
Attached is scope of work with hourly rates by category, for proposed irrigation designs.
The completion schedule for work is 120 days from authorization to proceed for through
task 1-3. Bidding is estimated to be 30 days and installation 60 days.
Please process through the appropriate channels and give me a call if you have any
questions.
Respectfully submitted,
'.\~.. (~~) .
'--"i'" ~('~.'
( 21,. .:;.. .' tt"i
'. )
'''''-
John P. Ribes, FLASLA
Senior Partner of JRL Design Studios
405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 F.239.261.5378
1990 Main Street, Suite 750, Sarasota, FL 34236 T. 941.309.5420 or Toll Free 888.261.4007
email: studio@irl-desian.com website: www.irl-desian.com
"
~ STUDIOS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLANNING DESIGN
WORK ORDER #
Irrigation Modification Design Main Street
1611 A13
John P. Ribes, FASLA
Richard T. Tindell, ASLA
Andrew D. Eisele, ASLA
Agreement for: Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term
Proposal Dated: August 15,2009 (RFP/BID # 08-5060)
This Work Order is for Professional Landscape Architectural Services, subject to the terms and
conditions of the contract referenced above, for work known as:
Project Name: Revised Landscape Architecture and Landscape Maintenances services
For the Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U.
The work specified in the proposal dated Au~ust 15. 2009, which is attached hereto and made a
part of this Work Order. In accordance with Terms and Conditions of the Agreement referenced
above, Work Order # is assigned to: JRL Design Studios.
Scooe of Work: As detailed in the attached proposal and the following:
Main Street Irrigation System
Task I - Inventorv & Analvsis -
Task 2 - 60% Irri~ation Desi~n-
Invoiced under W.O. 4500105395
Invoiced under W.O. 4500105395
Task 3 - 100% Bid Documents & Specifications
Principal/ Senior Landscape Architect 4 hrs. @ $128/hr.
Landscape Architect 8 hrs. @ $ 120/hr.
Technical Staff 16 hrs. @ $62/hr
Administrative 4 hrs. @ $55/hr.
Total
Task 4 - Biddin~ Assistance & Proiect Administration
Principal/ Senior Landscape Architect 4 hrs. @$128/hr.
Landscape Architect 4 hrs. @ $120/hr.
Design Associate 4 hrs. @ $75/hr
Administrative 4 hrs. @ $55/hr.
Total
Task 5 - CEI (Site Observation & Reports (21wk x 8)
Principal/ Senior Landscape Architect 12 hrs. @ $128/hr.
Landscape Architect 24 hrs. @ $120/hr.
Technical Staff 8 hrs. @ $62/hr
Administrative 16 hrs. @ $55/hr.
Total
TOTAL FEE
$9.988.00 (TME)
$512.00
$960.00
$992.00
$220.00
$2,684.00(TME)
$512.00
$480.00
$300.00
$220.00
$1,512.00(TME)
$1,536.00
$2,880.00
$496.00
$880.00
$5,792.00(TME)
Schedule of Work: Task 1-3 complete work within 120 days from receipt of the Notice to
Proceed, bidding estimated 30 days; installation 60 days.
405 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 5, Naples, Florida 34102 T. 239.261.4007 F.239.261.5378
1990 Main Street, Suite 750, Sarasota, FL 34236 T. 941.309.5420 or Toll Free 888.261.4007
email: studioC1llirl-desian.com website: www.irl-desian.com
,
~
16 , 1
A13
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN
4055'" AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5
NAPLES, FLORIDA 239-261-4007
O([)[J1)@]@@([)[F)@ ([)[P@[}oOij@@ij9@ go@O@] [P@[F)@[Pij
COpy TO : ~ OWNER D ARCHITECT D ENGINEER D CONSULTANT ~ MSTU Committee
- -
PROJECT: Immokalee MSTU - PO# 4500105395
CONTRACTOR: ClM
REPORT NUMBER:
JRL COMM No:
12
9003
Date: 8/12/09 Weather: Partly Cloudy
Time: 12:30 - 2 pm Temp Range: 93
Estimate % Complete: N/A
Schedule Conformance: As scheduled
PRESENT:
Richard Tindell
WORK IN PROGRESS:
Contractar absent
OBSERVATIONS:
Routine maintenance work has not been performed - tree down
REVIEWS:
REPORT:
Routine maintenance work has not been performed and no service
personnel were obsereved. Grass has not been recently mowed and
all along the project area (except at the triangle) move of the turf
was in seed (photo g sheet 2 is typical),
Tree has fallen over along Hwy 29 near triangle blocking sidewalk but
not traffic lanes. Reported to Darryl Richards by cell phone at 1 :02 pm.
Please see attached photos a & b sheet 1.
County electrician working across the street reported that the tree
was not down on Monday - asked about status of missing pole and
light next to work area.
Dead trees to the south of the Hwy 29 triangle have been removed
(photo c) as has the stump in the median on1st Street near the
Casino.
Road drains in the triangle are filling with debris (photo d) and need
to be cleaned out regularly.
Valve boxes along Main are a mess. filled with soil. it appears that the
inline filters have not been serviced in some time - first photo sheet 1 is
typical.
Landscape debris was found in the roadway along with dust and dirt
(photo e), Trash can pickup seemed in good order and in general the
161:r
A13
~
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN
405 5~ AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5
NAPLES, FLORIDA 239-261-4007
site looked respectable although most of the recommended
corrections have not been completed.
Palm trees still need to be trimmed and dead/dying plants removed
(photos f & h for example)
Many of the plants showed signs of nutrient distress (they need to be
fertilized) improper pruning, missing plants have not been replaced
and mechanical damage (photo I typical)
The consultant's report provides information to the County and the
MSTU Board to help them make informed decisions and issue
appropriate directives. Representative photos are submitted to make
the repart clearer and convey some information better.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Request more direction from County and MSTU Board.
Reported by:
Richard Tindell, asia, registered landscape architect LA767
16 11
A13
_ Valve Box.jpg
a Tree Down.jpg
b Tree Down.jpg
c Triangle Dead RemoVed.jpg
d Drain Blockage.jpg
e LS Trash.jpg
16Pl A13
nrim and Feed.jpg
9 Seed Heaos.jpg
h 3 Need Removal.jpg
i Dead and Missing Planls.jpg
16 ,rI A 13
:; .. lii: .. .. .. l: .. .. ~ .. '" '" ~ '" ~ '" '" '" '" - - - - - - - - - - .. .. ... .. co ... .. '" -
.. ... .. co .. '" .. .. .. .. .. '" - .. .. .. ... .. .. ... .. '" - ..
a~ '" '" ... to to ~ ... ~ ;: 0 0 0 ,.- ,.- " ,.- z ... Q z m m cl ... z 0 ~ ... ... '" z z ... ... ... 0 0
m m ?; C C ?; " ... ... m 0 '" 15 '" ?; 0 z z ?; m ~ ?; ?; ~ ... < ~ 0 0 m C
~~ '" '" 8 8 " m :!: :!: ~ Z :!: G> G> ~ G> '" m m 0 0 ,.- '"
'" m :!: C ;;;
m m z z z ~ ~ ~ m m z ... ... ?; '" m Z Z z .. ~ ~ z z m '" '" :!: ... ... > >
...'" ~ ~ '" ':!I ':!I '" '" '" '" '" z Z :!: '" m m m ,.- '" 1f' "'''' z m li! ... '" ~ 0 0
m< ... ... d ,.- 0 ;: > m z .. 0 0 m m ~ ... ... ... ... ... C '" :!: m ~
m m m m Z 0 '" G> G> ... m m 0 0 m m m... ~
c:m ... ... 0 " 0 ~ 0 '" '" m ;;; ~ '"
0'" ... ... '" '" ;: G> c;; < > > ~ 0 '" ~ '" ~ '" '" ~~ z '" ,.-
?; ?; - C m m z Z Z '" 0 to ,.-
G> 0 0 0 '" m ~ 0 m z z 0 ~ ... ... ... 0 0
... z ~ "'1 G> '" ... G> G> z '" '" C ...
':!I '" '" 0 z z - ~ m 0 0 z ~ ~ .. '" z 0 ?; '" '"
z '" '" C ... ,.- ... m ~ ... ... c: 0 ~ 0 0 Co Z '" m m
" 0 '" " ~ c;; " 0 z m '" '" ;: ;: ;;1 '"
~ z Z m G> '" m m 0 00 z ;: ;:
'" 0 ... > G> m Z m '" m m m m 0 0 Z m
0 z 0 " z Z G> '" ~ ?; m ... m ~ z ~ ~ ...,.- '" ;: '"
~ ... ~ m '" m G> ;: to c: ~ '" '" m G> c,.- m ... m ::; ~
m 0 0 z m '" 0 z > 0 C z m " "'m !!l m
z 0 0 m C ::; ,.- ,.- to m 0 z mo '" z
Q C 0 0 ... jjj o?; ...
G> ,.- m '" ~ " '" '" Z m '" C :!: ~ C m ... m
m ,.- " " m '" m ;: ~ Pen 0 '" :!:
0 Z m 0 ,.- G> ~ '" '" '" ... 15
5 Q 0 '" ~ iJj m 6 ~ ,.- m
d ;: Pl'" :!:
'" 0 z ... ~
m '" d
m '" m m z to
0 0 '" ... -< -<
C > '"
... '"
0 ~
0
0 m
0 "
0 Z
m G>
...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ..
to>
'" - - - 1;;;", -:::: b Iu; b ~ c i
'4"0 b ;. ;. ':...IN b -:::: ...~
...'" s: N N .. ~ W N .. ... !l N t '" ;;; .. ii
..... '" C> .... N "' "' N .. .. N '" N ... .. C> ... .. '" C> .. "'
1i~ '" b '" .. u. '-' '-' is b is b U. Ii!: b ... ;.., b ;.., is 1i i;:j ;.., '-' ;.., U. b '-' '" ...
~ C> :5 :5 C> C> C> C> C> C> C> C> N C> C> C> N C> :5 C> C> :5
C> C> C> C> C> C> ... , C> , C> C> C> C> , .. C> N C> oo C> oo C> , C> C> ,
c.b b is is b b b b is b '" b b b b b b b '" b ... '" b '" b is b is b
'" C> C> C> C> C> C> C> N C> C> C> C> C> C> C> N C> '" N C> N C> C> C>
...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... .. ... ... .. .. .. ...
n
0
3
3
... ~ ~ t: ~ N f
.. N co N W
i!! :.. .. <0 '" 0 ~ ~
oo oo .. ... co co .. .. If
, , C> .. C> co ... w 0 0 w , , , ,
.. Rl .. w 0 " co <0 0 W
.. N .. 0 0 N '" 0 co
...... ... .. .. .. .. ... ... .. ... ... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. ... ... .. .. ... ... .. ...... .. .. .. .. ... ..
m
M
- - .. ~ Ol '" 1~
5 ;.., .. ...-
Ol "'C
N N ... ... Cl N N - N C> oo c !!.
oo ~ N "' "' "' .. '" '" N ... ... .. .. ... C> '" iI
.. ;. N 2l '-' u. jg .. :.. ;.., :!: ~ N & * b .. '" " .- ... is '-' ;.
;j ~ '" '" C> C> - N ~ '" :5 III lilt: oo ... - "'
, , '" oo C> C> C> C> .. .. .. C> C> , , , '" .. C> N N
19 , w Co '" b b W w i:: '" w :. .. ~ b b ... , , m<c ~ w b , Co '"
.. "' "' C> C> N '" '" .. oo '" C> '" C> '" N .. "' C> .. ...
... .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. ... ... .. .. .. .. ... ... ... ... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... ..
>
- - - .,1;;; - - ";'i
::;: 0_
bt~ b =< =< .. -:::: I-;. I-;. - ;.., t b '" '" !t.
oo N lil ... .. N '" '" '" C> '" -0-
.. '" .. '" - ... ... C> iN ~~ '" '" C> .. ... '" ... ... C> '" '" oo .
'" '" b ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ i3 .. '" ;;; U. :". ;.., b .. ~ ;.., '-' N *t: i: .. b '-' ~ '"
~ ~ C> ~ '" C> C> C> :5 .. C> oo C> C> j:l N C> N C> ... C> C> ;;; ..
.. C> '" '" '" oo C> oo C> C> N '" C> N N C> oo C> oo C> '" .. C> C> ...
~ b b b ~ .. i;) b ~ '" $ b b 8 .. '" b ~ , '" b 8 '" b .. b ~~ ~ W b '" Co ..
C> C> C> ... ... .. '" C> C> oo '" C> N C> N C> N 0 '" C> C> '" ~
~ i
c !!:
llCl '" 0
lic:"
_z~
NOm
GO...
~mm
ON!!:
o U>
... -l
c:
-
::E < en en z s:: s:: s:: s:: ,.... ,.... '- '- :;] :;] 3" ." 0 0 0 OJ )> I
('i" <: 0 ~ <> <> <> ll> 0 0 ::0 ::0 Ul 0. 0 0 0 0 CD 3'
ll> - :;] <: Gl Gl Gl :;] m m ,.... ,.... <: al" 3 <: 3 3 3 :;]
<: 0 - - <> 0 0 ~ 0 ~ -
Ul ~ ~ ::r CD CD CD CD 0 0 ll> en 3 3 3 ~ m
ll> <: CD Ul CD CD CD ll> CD CD :;] !4 ". :;] <
<: en Ul ~ :;] Ul Ul <> ll> CD CD CD CD ~.
- - :;] 0 11O 11O 11O 0 10 ll> ~ 0 0 m CD
ll> Q' I<i"i" CD <>
::! :;] < en ll> )> )> )> 0 CD Ul ~ ~ iir 10 :;] ::::I
(ii' ~ :;] :;] Gl 0 CD
10 ~ rQ' Ul Ul Ul Ul 0 :;] !4 CD Q.
ll> CD - CD
:;] Z Ul Ul Ul :;] ::0 ~" Ul ,.... ,.... ,.... ~ ::!,
!!!. 0 0 0 ll> III ll> ('i' il ...
~ <> <> <> CD CD OJ :;] :;] :J Z
iii' iii' iii' ~ 3' 0 ll> 0. 0. 0. 0
QO Ul m - - !!!. Ul :;] ~ DI
,.... CD CD !'T !!!. :J s:: s:: s:: 3
~ Ul Ul Ul CD ll> ll> ll>
0 ~ ~ :i" S' CD
::r ~
- ,... ,...
~.
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
0'1 0'1 0 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1
0 0 or 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 Gi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "
~ ~ !4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Gl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 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 0'1 "'C 0 co 0 0 0 0 W N t 0'1 ~ co --I 0> 0> co co :tI:
~ <0 ~ <0 N N 0> N co 0 0> W W 0'1 W ~ --I 0'1
~ 0> 0> t w .... 0'1 ~ 0> <0 0'1 0> --I 0 ~ ~ 0'1
--I 0> <0 --I W W ~ N 0 W 0'1 0 0 0 co 0 --I
-l -l )> :e
,.... ,.... -l
0 0 -l s: 0
, , 5 .... ...
s:: s:: 0'1 , ='I"
0 0 0 0 0 0 ."
)> )> , -;-l 0
--I s:: 0'1 Cf Cf 0 co
Z Z Z .J,.. Z , , , z z z z z z z z ,
w w W 0'1 0'1 ~ 0'1 W i3.
)> )> )> ~ )> 0> 0> )> --I )> )> 0 0 )> )> )> 0 )> )> )> 0 <0
~ ~ , co co CD
w 0 --I 0> 0> 0>
--I .... i" '{1 ~ 0 0 W 0'1 -;-J :::!..
, 0> lD
0 0 ~ 0 0
--I co --I Cf a:
, ,
0 0 0 :tI:
0'1 0> ~
::E ,.... 0 ,.... ,.... ,.... ,.... 0 en "'C ,.... ,.... ,.... :;] 0 -l ::0 en OJ ,.... "'C 0
S' < a ~ ll> ll> CD CD 0 ~ ll> ll> Ul 0 ~ ~ - <: ll> ::r m
III :J :J <> ~ :;] :J ll> i[ 0- ll>
CD 0 ::r Ul ::r <: <: Ul 5'
Ul !!!. 0. 0. i 0. 0. 0
- ~ - ~" - iil ~ ::r ll> 0 Ul en
CD Ul 0 ~ Ul Ul ~ ~. Ul Ul ~ CD
0- )> <> <> :J ll> <> <> :J "'C <> en <: QO CD
0 (ii' ~ ~ en ~ ~ CD - <: <
w 0. "'C ~ CD <> en ('i' ~ ::0
0 ~ ". < ~ i[ "'C CD CD OJ 0 ('i"
:J -l Ul CD CD CD ~ :< ~ CD ". $, !l en
- ,.... ::l. ~, < , ll> CD - CD
~ <: )> )> en )> )> t6 :;]
III ll> ('i' H2, <: :c' i[ Ul 0
S' 3 (ii' ~ 0 en CD ." CD 0 ~ :J ~
Ul CD <> < ~ !i!- <> CD CD ~ 0- P 0- -"
CD ::r III 3 ::r ::r CD ::r ::r Ul en iil (ii' ~ liCD
~ 0 if if < ('i" 0 i ;: CD ,....
Ul CD CD < ::r 0 fa ,.... 3 ::::I
ll> "'C :J !4 !4 '- ~ 0 !4 !4 3 - fa
:J 0 - "'C Ul :;] ('i" CD -l ::r 1II:t'
Ul 10 <: <: ::r :J <: <: CD - ::r
Ii ~ ll> CD Ii ~ :J ~ ~. - 0
Ul Ul - ll> ~.
!!!. Ul !4 ll> "'C Ul in
~ en en CD 0' en en ~ ::r ::0
or CD CD < :J CD CD .g. 0 CD "'C .
~
.g < < < < CD ll> :J g.
('i" ('i' ~ ('i" ('i' !4 :J 0 CD
Ul <
CD CD CD CD ll> !4
Ul Ul a Ul Ul -
0'
~ :J
." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ."
;u ."
CD -<
3 0
~ N ll> co
0'1 <0 -.... 0'1 W '" '" -.... 0> :J l>
a> .... a> <0 J". 0 <0 co 0'1 :J 3
co co .... 0'1 co co .... --.j a> w
0 '" 0 0 --.j c::> '" 0 CJ1 ~ 0 <C r'"
, , , , , , , , , , ,
<0 co 0 a> '" 0 0 0 0 '" 0
<0 '" 0 '" 0 0 0 0 0 0'1 0
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
~ "l>
~
N N ~ co 0> DI ~
N ~ .--1 .N .N '" ~ N .0> .... N .0'1 co ~ N 9 -. <:
'--l ~ 0'1 .... ~ ~ J". c.n 0'1 i\J ~ N "0 8; 0'1 J". ~ '--l ~ Q.!!!,
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ co ~ <0 <0 --.j lfl ~ <0 0 0 ~ co 'C. co
co ~ .... 0> c::> N !'> 0> 9' 0 c::> c::> co ~ !>> c::>
'" <0 , 0 <0 0 0 , '" i->
0 0'1 ~ 0 co ~ 0 0 0 ~ w 0
0> 0 <0 0> co 0 0 0 w 0 0 ~ 0 0 w ~ N ~ 0
-l
o
-l
)>
,....
~
:J
CD
Ul
'"
CD
+
'"
~
...
....
.0'1
....
'"
c::>
CD
co
...
....
j
....
....
CD
~
~', ~ 1
-
)> 3
cE ." 3
ceo
UlZ~
.... I>>
I\)CCD'
G)...a,CI)
~G)i:
01\)(1)
o -f
CD C
RECEIVED
SEP 1 6 2009
soard of county ~
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
~
_1.20~ 6 n' 1 A 1~
3
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, July 13,2009
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR
SESSION at Administrative Building "F", 3rd Floor, Collier County
Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Bill Poteet
VICE CHAIRMAN: Michael Delate
Tony Pires
Jeffrey Curl
Mimi Wolok
Jeremy Sterk
Thomas Sobczak
Bob Dorta
Annisa Karim
Al.SO PRESENT: Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator
Jennifer White, .Assistant County Attorney
Cindy Erb, Real Property Management
Melissa Hennig, Principal Environmental Specialist
Christal Segura, Conservation Collier Land Manager
l.aura Davisson, Budget Analyst Miec. Conee:
o.a.: I D
_It.
Copies to:
16 I 1 A 14
'. July 13.2009
I.
RollCall
Chairman Potect called the meeting to order at 9:03AM,
quorum was established,
~
Roll call was taken and a
II. Approval of Agenda
illr. Delate moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Curl. Carried
ufUlJ/imously 8-0.
Mr. Delate moved to approve the Budget Workshop Agenda (Item ,":,1). Second by
Mr. Curl. Carried Illlallimollsly 8-0.
HI. Approval of .rune 8, 2009 Miuntes
Mr. Delate moved to approve the minlltes subject to the following corrections:
· Page 3. D. Budget update'" "Ad Valorum" to "Ad Valorem"
· Page 4, paragraph 4, bullet point 3 -- from ",.. Conservation Collier Staff
is attempting" ,," to ".,. Conservation Collier Staff are attempting..,."
Seconil by Mr. Dorta. Carried ullallimollsly 8-0.
IV. Old Busincss
A. Rcal Propcrty Managcmcnt Updatc - A-list propertics
Winchestcr Hcad. to date, 41 parcels acquired totaling 58,04 acres. Further
appraisals in August with letter to go out in September.
UnitS3 - to date, 59 parcels acquired totaling 170,82 acres. Further appraisals in
August with letter to go out in September.
Camp Kcais - to date, 6 parcels acquired totaling 32,58 acres
McUvanc Marsh RJS, LLC. (Now Triangle Licensing Corp) - Board of
County Commissioners approved the agreement - dosing within a month.
Cvclc 6 propcrtics appraisals in October with letters out to landowners to
follow.
Ms. Wolak arrived at 9: II AM
B. Brochu propcrty Rcvised Final Managcmcnt Plan - Fire Managemcnt Plan
and Appendix Additions
Christal Scgnra, Conservation CollicrLand Manager presented "Brochu
Preserve Land Management Plan, Filial Draft" for approval. She notcd the plan
was previously approved, but has been amended under the Goals Section
regarding preseribed burns and addition of Appendix 3, which provides an
example template of a proposed prescribed bum plan.
Committee discussion oceurred if the Fire District should review the prescribed
burn aspects of the plan prior to Conullittee approval.
The Committee recommended the plan include a requirement to eoordinate with
the Local Fire District before a prescribed burn occurs.
2
July 13. 2009
/Ils. Karim moved to approve the Plall ("Brochu Preserve Land ilJanagement
Plan, Final Draft'') as amended (including the above recommendation).
Second by MI'. Pires. Carried unanimously 9-0.
v. New Business
A. Budget Workshop
I. Introduction, "Game Plan," and Ohjeetives - Alex Sulecki
The Executive Summary "Budget Workshop" dated 7!13/2009 and an overview of
the Prognun to date was provided. The objective of the Workshop is for the
Committee to provide direction to the Staff on Management Activities in the
individual preserves and ensure Management funds are available into perpetuity.
The Committee will review the budget for final approval in the future.
II. Overview of Back-up Material- Melissa Hennig
The Executive Summary was provided noting the figures are draft estimates to be
utilized as a starting point for Committee review.
Jt was noted one goal of the budget review should be a detemlination if the
Conservation Collier Ordinance requirement of transfening 15% of received
revenue to the Land Maintenance Fund should be amended.
Discussion OCCUlTed with thc following noted:
· Assumed interest income increase estimates were developed with the
Finance Dcpattment and are a fluid nnmber based on a variety of
factors (economic factors. amount of funds available for deposit, etc.)
· There is no contingency factored into the estimates.
· A base year of FY 201 0 was utilized for the future taxable value
estimates.
HI. Overview of Interactive Spreadsheet - Laura Davidson
An interactive spreadsheet has been developed where real time changes may be
made to the budget estimates. It will be utilized to provide different budget
scenarios based on Committee input for anticipated revenue and proposed
expenditnres on individual Preserves. etc.
The Committee requested a copy ofthe base spreadsheet be emailed to mcmbers.
IV. Recommendations for Management Activities by Preserve - Committee
Melissa Hennig reviewed the "Conservation Collier Land Maintenance Fund
(J 74) Actual and Proposed Management Cost Breakdown by Preserve" included
in the Executive Summary.
She noted the goal is for the Committee to review the individual Preserves and
recommend proposed expenditures.
It was noted Assct Protection is "Protection of the Resource'. acquired by the
Program (initial and on going maintenance. etc.)
3
July 13, 2009
In reviewing the individual Preserve proposed expenditures, Committee
discussion occurred on the most optimal way to proceed in developina the budget
including: "
.
Individual Committee member comments and/or questions be
developed lnr each Preserve and submitted to S taff for responses.
Without an approved Management Plans on a Preserve, it is dif1icult to
estimate its required expenditures.
The Conservation Collier Ordinance does not require the provision of
facilities for public access (parking, boardwalks. ete)
Should the Committee develop standards for the anlenities provided
throughout the Preserves to ensure consistency within the Program?
Vv'hat are the requirements for the proposed amenities to be funded for
the Greenway Preserve"
Estimates have not been developed for the anticipated mitigation
revenue.
.
.
.
.
.
Jennifer White, Assistant County Attorney will provide a memo on the ADA
(American Disabilities Aet) requirements for public access (parking spaces,
patlvboardwalk requirements, etc.)
V. BREAK
Break: J J : /3 am
Reconvened: 11 :22 am
VI. Presentation of results from Committee Recommendations - Melissa Hennig
Laura Davisson provided an overview of the assumptions utilized in developing
the revenue streams for the proposed budget. She recommended the Committee
review the all infoDnation provided on the budget for input at the next meeting.
Under Committee discussion the following was noted:
. When budgeting, 5% of revenue is held in reserves.
. The values of the Panther Habitat Units (PHU's) are not eurrently
shown in anticipated revenues.
· Most of the PHU's revenue wiII be held in the "Starnes Fund" to fund
the Starnes property into perpetuity.
· Currently there are 3 revenue funds: the Acquisition Fund, the
Conservation Collier Land Maintenance Fund and the Starnes Fund.
· In the future, due to PHU's and wetland mitigation, there will be a
Pepper Ranch Fund.
· The revenue estimates are based on known sources (not fllture user
fees to be developed. Grants, etc.)
· Should Intra-Governmental Agencies be charged appropriate
(applicable) fees for mitigation (as opposed to reduced fees)"
VII. Additional Recommendations to balance the Conservation Collier Land
Management Fund
To be continued.
4
16 I ~1
.I uly 13, 2009
A14
VIII. Final Wrap-np - Melissa Hennig
114r. Pires moved to cOlltillue the Budget Workshop to the September 2009
meetillg. Secolld by 111r. Dorta.
Committee members may submit recommendations and/or comments to Statl" for
review. Staffwil! provide the following for their review;
I. A Sensitivity Analysis with approximately 4 diflercnt budget scenarios.
2 Subcommittee recommendations on the priority of Preserve openings.
3. The requirements ofthc amenities and/or funding obligations for the
Greenway Preserve.
4. Budget analysis of Preserves cunently in operation.
5. Clarification on the assumptions for the expenses associated with cxotie
removal on the Preserves.
6. Rccommended minimum standards for the amenities existing or proposed in
Preserves.
Carried ultallimollsly 9-0.
B. Coordinator Communieations
· The Board of County Commissioners accepted the Conservation
Collier Annual RepOlt on June 23. 2009 including the strategy on
suspendinJ:l, the current acquisition Cycle.
· The ~ C:ollier Initial Screening Report has been amended based on
Committee input. The existing casement over the Pepper Ranch lands
would be extinguished if the County acquires both Area I aIld Area 2.
· Provision of the "Conservation Collier Subcommittees. June 2009"
member list.
· The owners of the Benfield Road properties propose eonveYallee to the
Collier Soil and IYaler Conservation District.
. The approval of the Preserve names proposed by the Committee arc
scheduled t()r the July 28,2009 Board of County Commissioners
meeting.
C. Purchase Policy revision - getting a third appraisal for properties valued
over $10 MillioIl
Alcx Snlecki presented the Executive Summary "Proposed Revision to
Consen'ation Collier Purchase Policy, Resolution 2007-300" dated 7/13/2009.
Committee discussion occurred on t]lC exact wording of the proposed policy.
Mr. Pires mot'ed to table tlte item to tlte October 2009 meetillg. Second by Ms.
Karim. Carried 1l11animously .9-0.
VII. Sub-Committee Meetiug Reports
A. Outreach - Tony Pires, Chair
None
5
July 13,2009
B. Lands Evaluation and Management - Mike Delate, Chair
Meeting held in June to review Interim Management Plan for Pepper Ranch with
Staff to ineorporate reeommended revisions.
Meeting on July 20, 2009 at North Collier Regional Park to review the revised
Plan.
C. Ordinance Policy and Procedures - Mimi Wolok, Chair
None
VIII. Chair Committee Member Comments
None
IX. Public General Comments
None
X. Staff Comments
None
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the chair at 12:01P.M.
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee
h4!ifJ2
Bill Poteet, ~hairma;v
These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on
as presented.._..... or as amended
~p!. It/I d.OO'1
rJIj)----
6
1611 A15
GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU
ADVISORY COMMITIEE
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FI 34104
September 17,2009
AGENDA
I. Call Meeting to Order
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes: August 20, 2009
V. Budget Report
A. Budget Committee - Caroline Soto & Bob Cole
VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM
VII. Landscape Architect's Report - McGee & Associates
A. Maintenance Report
B. Doral Circle Entry Renovations
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 October 15,2009 at 4:00 p.m.
CC Transportation Building Mise. ColTes:
2885 Horseshoe Drive South .l D ~ 1 D'-j
Naples, FL 34104 Dale. (
Item': (loT- l
s
Copies to:
'.
1611A15
GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples. FI 34104
August 20,2009
Minutes
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 4:00 P.M.
II. Attendance:
Members: Tony Branco, Robert Cole, Kathleen Dammert, David Larson,
Robert Slebodnik
County: Darryl Richard-Project Manager, Caroline Soto-Budget Analyst,
Michelle Arnold - Director ATM, Pam Lulich-Manager Landscape
Operations
Others: Mike McGee-McGee & Associates, Jim Fritchey-CLM, Darlene
Lafferty-Mancan
III. Approval of Agenda
Robert Cole moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by
Kathleen Dammert. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes: July 16, 2009
Robert Cole moved to approve the July 16, 2009 minutes as
submitted. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously.
5-0.
V. Budget Report
A. Budget Committee - Caroline Soto & Bob Cole
Caroline Soto reported the following:
~ Available Improvements General $173,980.10
~ P.O. $129,703.12 spentto date
VI. Landscape Maintenance Report-CLM
Jim Fritchey reported:
o Regular Maintenance-Ongoing
o Sable boot trimming-Complete
o Irrigation-Operational
Darryl Richard reported testing is being conducted on a hit controller
failure possibly due to a lighting strike.
1
1611A15
It was clarified CLM is responsible for maintaining weed control and
Hedge trimming on Rattlesnake Hammock and Doral Circle.
Darryl Richard noted the following concerning the Hedge on Rattlesnake
Hammock Rd. and Doral Circle:
. Shrub replacements will be conducted by Hannula
. Additional Wax scale treatments are required by Hannula (plant
materials are under warranty)
It was noted 1/3 of the plants were deficient and will be addressed by the
Contractor.
The Committee and Staff concurred CLM responded promptly on the
requests from the July 16, 2009 meeting.
Jim Fritchey expressed concern of a potential long term effect on the
plant material being maintained at a very low height.
VII. Landscape Architect's Report - Mike McGee reported:
A. Maintenance Report
. Litter removal (at plant base) was requested of CLM
. Heavy cutback of plant material in the median on Doral Circle was
requested
B. Doral Circle Entry Renovations-Mike McGee reported:
. ROW Permit was received
. Plans were revised to include additional signage (5) for crosswalks
(Recommendations via ROW Comments)
. Revised total Base bid $40,204.70 includes:
)) Lykins quote-$750.00 per sign (based on HOA sign quote)
)> Warning pavers-$448.00
Darryl Richard noted ROW approval for a Permit was received for the
rail installation (to camouflage the blue water pipe) on Median 3
Project. (See attached)
Discussions developed concerning the type of rail to be installed. The
following was reviewed:
> Standard FDOT rail
)) Made of Aluminum material
)) Additionally may be Powder coat green
)) Has a picket fence appearance
> 30 feet of Rail will be installed on both sides of the road
Darryl Richard requested the irrigation adjustments be made by CLM.
Discussions continued on the FDOT Rail:
> Projected cost $5,700.00 (unpainted)
> State average for Rail installation is $62.00 per lineal ft.
> Powder Coat will increase the cost
Robert Slebodnik requested the status on damage (irrigation and
sod) by FPL.
Darryl Richard responded:
o Irrigation repairs are complete
o 120 sq. ft. of Sod is required
2
1611A15
Staff suggested CLM provide a cost estimate for Median 3 Project.
Robert S/ebodnik moved to allocate $6,000.00 for the renovation
of Median 3, which will be cared for by CLM as part of their
regular contract. Second by David Larson. Motion carried
unanimously 5-0.
Darryl Richard announced there is limited availability of reuse water
for irrigation. The following recommendations were made:
. Relocate the pump from the Warren St. Sub Station-requested by
the Utility Department
. Reconnect to a different line-the current line is not always
pressurized
. A need for an Alternative water source-Well or potable
. Reviewed 2 proposals by McGee and Associates for Design
Services: (See attachments)
)) Services for Existing Reuse Water Source Pump Station
Relocation and Modifications at Warren St.-$2,340.00
)) Services for Reuse Water Source Pump Station Design with
Mixing Chamber -$3,876.00
After much discussion it was concluded removal of the existing Pump
(Warren St.) was required (by Utilities), however more practical to
install a new pump package in lieu of utilizing the existing pump.
Estimate = $35,000.00.
Robert S/ebodnlk moved that we allocate $1,484.00 for Landscape
Architectural Services by McGee & Assoc. for the existing Reuse
Water Source Pump Station relocation and modifications within
Lely Beautification MSTU at Warren St Second by Robert Cole.
Motion was amended to read the amount; "$2,340.00"
Motion carried unanimously 5-D.
Robert S/ebodnlk moved to allocate $3,876.00 to McGee & Assoc.
for Architectural Services for Reuse Water Source Pump Station
Design with mixing chamber for the Lely Beautification MSTU at
Warren St Second by Robert Cole. Motion carried unanimously
5-0.
VIII. Transportation Operations Report
A. Project Managers Report - Darryl Richard reviewed the Project
Status Report. (See attached)
Robert Slebodnik stated George Ramsey volunteered to serve on the
BVO (Best Value Offer) Selection Committee for the Landscape
Architectural Services Contract.
B. Review of the To Do List (See attached)
. #3 St. Andrews Entry Sion Refurbishment (remountino of metal rim)
3
1611A15
Tony Branco presented trim replacement samples supplied by
Sign Craft, noted the gold metallic painted trim was recommended.
He perceived no action is required at this time due to the recent
sign repairs.
. #6 Solar Lioht
)) Hart's Electrical will contact the manufacturer for bulb
alternatives and clarification on the bulb warranty
IX. Housekeeping Items-None
X. Committee Reports-None
XI. Old Business-None
XII. New Business
A. Review of Applicants for the Lely Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee
Darryl Richard announced Tony Branco and David Larson reapplied
to serve on the Lely Beautification MSTU Committee.
It was noted the term for Robert Cole will expire 10-1-09 and was not
publicly advertized.
Kathleen Dammert moved to (recommend to the BCC) the
approval of Tony Branco and David Larson to extend their terms
to serve on the Leiy MSTU Committee. Second by Robert
S/ebodnlk. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
XIII. Public Comments-None
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the
meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 5:11 P.M.
Lely Golf Estates Beautification
MSTU Advisory Committee
~~ ~L(~
Robert Slebod~ik, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Committee on
as presented >< or amended
C)-ll'O~
4
161~
The next meeting is September 17,2009 at 4:00 p.m.
CC Transportation Building
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
5
A15
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta ~
~a' II
GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FI 34104
16IflRk1:~ED /'
SEP 2 1 2009
Board of County Commissioners
September 18, 2008
SUMMARY OF MINUTES AND MOTIONS
III. Approval of Agenda
Add: VI-B. Ball Site Cleanup and Storm Water Repair Update on Sf.
Andrews Blvd - Val Prince
VI-C. Extension of McGee & Associates Contract
VII-B. Transfer of Funds for Invoice Submitted by CLM
Maintenance
XII-A. Proposed Date Change for the October Board Meeting
Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the Agenda as amended.
Second by Tony Branco. Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes: August 21, 2008
Change: V- Pg. 2 Lariape should read "Liriope."
Tony Branco moved to approve the August 21, 2008 Minutes as
amended. Second by David Latson. Motion carried unanimously
4-0.
VI. C. Extension of McGee & Associates Contract
Discussion ensued on extending the McGee & Associates Annual
Landscape Contract Work Order expired on October 1, 2008.
Robert Slebodnik moved to maintain design continuity with our
ongoing 4-Year Lely Landscape Renovation Project with McGee
& Associates Contract be extended until September 30, 2009.
Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
VIII. Transportation Operations Report
A. Project Manager's Report - Darryl Richard distributed and
reviewed. (See attached report and email) Mile. CoIres:
1
0IIt:
nemt:
Copies to:
16 1;1 A 1 5
Darryl Richard stated Bid 08-5120 on the Doral Circle Hedge Project
came in and the low bidder was Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation Inc.
David Larson moved to accept the bid from Hannula
Landscaping & Irrigation Inc of $23,822.55 proposal for the
planting of hedge at Rattlesnake-Hammock Road at Ooral Circle.
Second by Robert Slebodnik. Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
Robert Slebodnik moved to add a not to exceed 15% contingency
based on $23,822.55 for the Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation Inc.
proposal. Second by Kathleen Dammert. Motion carried
unanimously 4-0.
Michael McGee suggested having RWA Survey set corners of all the
lots before construction so there are no arguments on fence line.
David Larson moved to have a surveyor stake the back corner of
6 lots for the Rattlesnake-Hammock Road at Doral Circle hedge
project not to exceed $2,500. Second by Robert Slebodnik.
Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
Darryl Richard recommended extending the Maintenance Contract
180 days.
Robert Slebodnik moved to request Staff to extend the present
Contract with Commercial Land Maintenance to September 28,
2009. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
2
!r:!i
. .
'D
. .
o.
,
N
~C~
~h
N
i
~
~,...lil
.oe""C6
~~=g
H
~-
ill
H
"...
-<~
;i
,<
"ll!.
~:i
~"
--<
reo
...~
n
i"
~! ...
c . a
. , ..
~
'ii ;-
~ .
.
~
.
w
~
~~~
Ii!
;\;:; 8
;Yi ~
Z
'"
m
z
o
-<
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=~.WN
~~w~~o~o~o~oc~c~~oo~~mo~~oom:
~5a~~~~~~~~~~~~~?~~~~~~~~~
~"'m"'m~~~o~~m~mz~~ nz~m~m <~
~ ~~> >~~r~w--OOI~>~ ~oommm'
~~~~~r~~nON~mzzn rz ~nnn~m
m~~~oo~Zoo~m_ooQQ~ mn~Qo~~zoo
~~~oo~CmQQm~~~~~m ~mo~zm8Qo
~~~ c~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
~g~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~OO~
o~ 8 ~m ~OOOZZ~ ~~ ~~~
F~ ~ ~ n~ g~oo ~ ~c
mm ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ m
o ~ () >-
;:u m )> z
o ~ 0
m
16 If 1~ 1.'5
::::CCQ~....cn,"""'WN
-lZO()-t-t
~lRH~~
Zu.::tI::tIZZ
~#-<-<~~
mm""mm
::tI(f)OO;;lJ::tI
OO-l:::tl:::tJ"."
,,";J)~~:tI::tI
nm",,,OO
0< 0 o:S:::S::
~ OG:l:;!~
:::tI "'mx-o
65 m~();:u
~~~~
~r-hl~
'" 0
'" ...
-< 0
" "
o
o
n
6'l6'l(l)ifl6'l{h
::Uz Z :!H)
~iTl~~i
~;:u(/)I)>
c:rn~:tO
rn-lm;:cj;
g>:;!~05
~><2Q;:u
o()-tzm
!!:~mz:i:
r:::tl-t-l
mmm)>
nr.n::oX
-<-<m
o (J>
" -<
_6'l~(I)(I)~6'l~ifl~6'l6'l6'l6'l6'lifl6'l6'l6'l6'l6'l6'l6'l6'l6'l6'l6'l6'l
Nf'\) ~~!::t:
(DOl 01 0> N Wc,..l................. r.n tIl
A-.ANN......:....~~iooooo
ogC5ggggC5o~gogg
8ggggggggggggg
omi\J.".
UlOO>'OO
00000
00000
66066
00000
~w
Ul.".....OO>UlO
~ggl:lgggg
00000000
gggggggg
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ww~~~
N ~ ~
.. ~ ~ ~
~ '0 ~ .~ '" .~ .~ '"
~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ .. ~
N ~ .. ~ ~ .. ~
.. 00 '" 0 ~ ~ '" 00
~ 00 ~ .. .. ~ .. ..
-.. -- ~w~w~~~w~~~w~~ww~~~
Nf\J NN c;
.... Ul.... ww........ N
f:~~~~!:t~t
OCO.....OOUlUlW
~~~gg!!~
~
"
::i
~
~ ~
0>f\J .....f\JO'"'-lm
N"c,n ""No"c,n-IO-m
'"'-lUl""tIlOlUlU>O
~!"ltll""'WNCOO
WtllClo>u.mfDO
Ol.....wNlOUl....O
woo
....-Ul-....
~:1:;:~
:p:~~~
~~~...
~~...~W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- :::
~ .. ~ ;;; 0
w w ~ 00 ,w_ w ,~
~ m ~ .. '.. .. 0 ~ 0 ~ D ;" ;: .. c.., "' '~
.. w w ~ ~ .. 0 ~ ~ OJ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ w ~ 0
.. 0 .. 0 0 w 0 .. w ~ 0 m 0 ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~
!li '" ~ ;. .. " .. '" 0 ~ 0 " " '" '" '" .. " ..
0 0 0 ~ 0 m 0 S 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ w
Cflcncncn-o;;s: ;!:3:
C:C::OOCDooo
:J :J c: s. 3 G> G> G>
~2~ffi;:o:~~~
._'-~-'
~:J ~ Qc Qc
S; $U'l SQ )>)>)>
g: g: cg' 'g = = =
~~ ggg
;:~
~~
~ 0:
, (J>
".
,
~
~
5"5"
. ~
a ai
, $1
~ ()
"'.
. -
, "
. .
ii1. 3'
~
c
.
.
3
.
a
:r:r
. .
" ,
u'-21
m..
.~
Q. ~
[~
"
5
D
""
,,0
~iI
.
~
"
.
~
c
il
.
"TI"T1"T100(00000)><
~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~!
~ ~ ~ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ~ a i
:J ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i
i~~~~~~~~~~~
gli[[~[~[~~'
"
o 0 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~
- - 'f If' If' ~~ '{'If' ~ ~ [ ~~ ~ 'f ~ ~ 'f 'f 'f ~ [ ~
[[0 oGio 00 gg GiG5 0 ~ 00 0 G50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i
"lJ"tI~ ~Ol$ ww 00 ~ ;: ;: 0 nm 0 ~ ~ 0 0 .. ~
;j'f ..~ ~ m " .. w ~ .. .. ~ " 0
. . m ~ ~ ~~ w ~. ~w w ~ ~ ;> ~ m ~. ;>
~ ~ w ~ .. w.. ~~ .. ~~ ~o .. m m ~ m m ~~
...
~
0 ~
0 0 i: 00 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 :;:
~ ~ 'J> 0/''1' 'fz ~ 0/' 0/' 'I' .. ~ ~ ~ '" ;l-
~~~ J.<o zz J. z z' zz z z J.
w ~~ w_ ~ w ~ w -~ is: w w 0:
;;;" m 00 ~)> );); 0 ); ~ 0 ~ "0 );); m m ); ); 0 0
w ;: mm ~ ~ ~ .. .. ~ ~ ~ w .. a
~ ~ 6 00 w 0 ~ ~ 0 .. m m m 0 .
~ "-
6
~
~ ~c5- g> ~ 5' ~ 5' g> ~
:tI a g ~ Ii" 21 ii1. 21 ~ e!,
g'-o6;;V3~~~~2.
~:J. "":J CD n
III ~ ~!!.lD Q. It Q. ~ ~
:'~~8;"'m;"'(IIa
U'l:J o:J! g! s.<
! W III :J ~ ~ ~ !il ~
~:J .... (II ~ !il ~ (I) 'g
~!il a
~ g i :tI~
.... )> ~ )>
~ ~~~
~ ~g~
3' c: c::
li" ii1. ii1.
x (J>
:; ~
l ill
.
5'OQom;;s:
III 0 :J 0 ~ c:
c: c: h Dl 9: 0'
~~~C;o'~
!ilWroa~
2 ~ .
-..... r
~ ,. :!.
III ~(Q
".
. "
OJ a
~. e'
$1
~.g'~:;:;~R~~b'~a
~ 5'"2, a a iil is: a a ~ Ii" c:
N' i!!: ~ (I) III - (II Ie \!! lD .... S!:
lD CD (II lit ILl Q:J iii 1Ii:J S10 (II
;~i6'"8i~i~~g~~
r!!!.~~:!:, P;;S:;;S:~t6-
a. a!i !!!.!!!.::tI:::j!!!.!!!. ~.... ()
Q' s:;:!.;:!.~o;:!.;:!.~. ~
ft aG)0~~-=::G)g. ~ 0
'&aiil.(IIo-ai3:J 2. i
c:: i:i, 0 C" _. c:""O 0::;:1
:J ;:l' _' iD ~:J c: W ill
It?;:~lD~g.3 ~f3:a
.....0 CD S" -0 :J 0
E~~~-e~ ~ iJ
5'3 S1O.......0 3' 0
""'lD::IJ 0:"'" S!:
3'~t 2: ~
Q.o W ~
li"iii!il
~gx
.e iil ~
.e
g>
2
ill
.
- WWEflEflEflWWW .... ..~~ WWWWWWERW~W~WEREflEfl " "
. -<
3 0
N . ..
~ ~ w ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ,. "
j:; .. ~'" ~ '.. '" .0 .~ ;" ~ ,. ~
0 ~~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~
N W ~ 00 .. .. ~ .. 0 0
.. .. ~o ~ N ~ m '" .. " ~
~ ~ 00 ~ ~ .. m w ~ 0
- ...... ..-.. ..~ .... EflEfl~~M~~~EflERERM~~~~ERER
;:: ~ ~ ~
~ 0:
.. ~ ~ ~ .. w m ~ ~ m ~ ~ .. !!.
a: 0 0 ~ " " 0 ~ t ;" 0.. " 0 " ~ ~ ;t; ,,~ '" ~ w ~ " "
;t; w .. ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ .. ~ 0 ~ ;t; m ;;: ::i ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ w
w 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ,. 0 ~ ~ 0 - w ~ .. w .. ~ ~ ~ ~
;. .. 0; ;;; " '" '" 0 0 .. " '" " " D '" '" 51: .. io " ~ '" N ':t '" '"
~ .. 0 0 0 0 m 0 w 0 ~ 0 .. m ~ 0 ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~
"'~~ww
"
~
~
~
o
o
S
"
- "'.
~ c .
~CI.:I
g!La
o
"
S
'"
o
o
o
"
S
EflEfl"'~"'~ih"'~~~
o
~
[
.
,
11
Efl~~"'6'I
m
x
- -..
~ N:I !l
Ul co ::;:S:c
3:tJ~~~2'!.
CO'"'-lWtlllOiiJ
:....0l~~u.1lII
~~~.e$
~~~~~~~ilIttlt~tIt
"
-<~
Oi ~ ~ ~;'
'~ '" ;> c.., -..
~w ~ .. ..
O~ W ~ 0
CDi.'>> .. .. ..
"'~ w ~ .=0
)>
cS "T1 r-
ccrn
~z!:(
"'03:
wO ... en
","'-4
","'c
'"
CD
?1tetpe & rliJ4<<late4
16111
A15
Landscape Architecture
July 29, 2009
Mr. Danyl Richard, RLA, Project Manager
Lely Golf Estates Beautification, M.S.T.U.
Collier County Traffic Operations and
Altemative Transportation Modes
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, Florida 34104
Subject: Professional Landscape Architedulal Setvices for Reuse Water Source Pump Station Design
with Mixing Chamber for the LeIy Beautification MSTU at Warren Street. 2009-013P.
RECEIVED
AUG 0 3 2009
.1 ransponaLlon
ATM Dept.
Dear Mr. Richard,
Per your e-mail we are submitting this alternate setvices proposal. It is our recommendation based
upon the past issues that have ocaJrred with ltIe existing reuse water source supply that a new pump
station be designed with a backup water SOUl1le of potable water. The mixing chamber design with
potable backup is the best assurance of a continuous source of irrigation water for the MSTU project
areas.
The following proposal is being submitted for final irrigation and electrical design and contract
administration consulting setvices to be provided under our current 08-5060 Landscape Architectural
Services Fixed Term contrad.
General Scooe of Services
Tesk 1: Final Irrigation and Electrical Design
a. Provide site plan and instalalion notes, specifications and details for:
Reuse water meter re-tap downstream of tank
Eledrical setvice assembly & location
Pump station and mixing cl8nber sizing and design
Provide required irrigation system and electrical connections.
b. Permitting:
a. Supply and submit required permit drawings to Collier County for submittals
and permit approvals.
b. Provide required wrilfen correspondence, verbal communications or
presen.tation for the project permitting.
Task 2: Contrad Administration CEil (Sefvices During ConstIUClion)
a. Review and assist in the preparation of final contrad documents for bidding and
construdion purposes.
b. Provide site observation senrices during construdion to ensure compliance to plans
and specifications.
c. Attend site meetings.
d. Upon completion of the project, the Landscape architectural firm shall supply
recordlas-built plans for ~ion iocalions in Autocad format.
Design .. Environmental Management .. Planning .. Arborist
5079 Tamiami Trail East, P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101
Phone (239) 417-11707. Fax (239) 417-11708
LC 098. FL 1023A
1611 A15
Page II
Lely Golf Estates M.S.T.U.
Grounds Maintenance Consulting
July 29. 2009
2009-013P
SCODe of Services: Desiun New pllllllJ Station with Mixing Chamber for Alternate Water Source
Task 1.0 Finallrrioation & Electrical Desiun __ _ ___ __ __ __ _ ____
Princl II Semor L.A- -L-- un~_ ---:f.:. =-.:.~:,e~ -~-=- $2~:tOO
~~~~~~ffi1~~~i~~n'i=..-"" -~-- .=t. ....--~+~--=i= =::
L__l_______ To~=-J__ __U$2,7i4.0ii-- J
Task
o t
. i
i
----1
Princi II Senior L.A_
AutoCAD Technician
Administrative
UnitlHrs Ratas i Cost
6 -r-- -
------------r--.--- $128.00_____--1_ $768.00
2 i $62.00 I $124.00
--;f- ----T ---- $55.00 I $220.00
. _L___ _ ____ _.1 _ __________Total:t== $1,112.00
I
-+-
,
i
'1
I
,
Total amount of Fees.....................................................................................$3.876.00
If you should have any questions or need further information please contact me any time. We look
forward to working with your Department while improving and maintaining our roadways.
.~~
Michael A MCGM~
,p President. McG;r;~;soclates LC 098
;-~ECEIVED
AilG n 3 2009
: ~ : , ~:, 1 r i ,; l
\T]\~ T)cp i
?1te~ & ;'/4d~iate4
161'l'A15
Landscape Architecture
July 29, 2009
Mr. Darryl Richard, RLA, Project Manager
Lely Golf Estates Beautification, I\II.S.T.U.
Collier County Traffic Operations and
Alternative Transportation Modes
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples. Florida 34104
Subject: Professional Lallllscape Architectural Services for Existing Reuse Water Source Pump
Station Relocation and l\IIodifications within the Lely Beautification MSTU at Warren Street
2009-012P.
RECEIVED
AUG 0 3 2009
'l'ransponaLi'J.
ATM Dept
Dear Mr. Richard,
As requested, the following is beiRg submitted for final ilTigation and electrical design and contract
administration consulting services to be provided under our current 08-5060 Landscape Architectural
Services Fixed Tenn contract.
General SCOIMI of Services
Task 1: Final Irrigation and Electrical Design
a. Provide siIe plan and installation notes, specifications and details for:
Reuse water meter re-tap downstream of tank
Electrical service assembly & location
Pump station and mixing chamber sizing and design
Provide required inigatlon system and electrical connections.
b. Pennitting:
a. Supply 8IId submit required pennit drawings to Collier County for submittals
and penni! approvals.
b. Provide required written correspondence, verbal communications or
presentalion for the project pennitting.
Task 2: Contract Administration CEIl (Services During Construction)
a. Review and assisll in the preparation of final contract documents for bidding and
construclion purposes.
b. Provide site observation services during construction to ensure compliance to plans
and specifications.
c. Attend site meetings.
d. Upon completion of the project, the Landscape architectural linn shall supply
recordlaH>uilt p1MlS for irrigation locations in Autocad fonnat.
Seoue of Services: Existina Re_ Water Source & PumD Stldion Reloclltion with Modifications
T.... . n ""ft.' . .
UnltIHnI Rates Coat - --
Princinall Senior LA 6 $128.00 $788.00 ~
AutoCAD Technician 8 $62.00 $496.00
~!Ilstrative ._.'~ $55.00 S220.00
4
... TotlIl: $1,4M.oo
Design ... Environmental Management ... Planning ... Arborist
5079 Tamiami Trail East I P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101
Phone (239) 417-8707' Fax (239) 417-8708
LC 098' FL 1023A
1611 'A15
Page II
Lely Golf Estates M.S.T.U.
Grounds Maintenance Consulting
July 29, 2009
2009-012P
Task 2.0 Contract Administration CEllServices DunnG Con.....ldil)nl
. .___ m . UniVHrs l ..B!J!!.
. Prir1.(;~al!.i>.!'niorJ,.~c . ....... 4 . 5128.00
, AutoCAD Technician"-'-'2'-- ... ..+~.. 562.00
l AdmillistiBtive i 4 . i. ... ~~!;.()().
r .._ ... Total:"
Cost
...,..-._-_..~-
$512.00
. 5124.00 -"",
_________"________--1
$22000 J
$856.00
Total amount of Fees...... .................... ........... ........... ................. ........... ........$2.340.00
If you should have any questions or need further information please oontact me any time. We look
forward to working with your Department while improving and maintaining our roadways.
Cordially,
~~
Michael A MCG~'I a
/' PreSIdent, M~e & Associates LC 098
RECEIVED
AUG n 3 2009
franspon::\.li.UJ.
/\Ti"l Der,t-
1611 A15
Report Date: August 20, 20~
Prepared by:
Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes
Tessie Sillery, Operations Co<>rdinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes
Lely MSTU Project Status
(L-47) ACTIVE ~ Installatio.. of Mixing Chamber
Recommendation from McGee & Associates to have Committee consider alternative 'source' for water and utilize
a 'mixing chamber' to allow tlhe Committee to switch from re-use water to either potable water or well water.
8-20-09: McGee & Associates Proposal (dated 7-29-09); $3,876.00 total proposal
(L-46) ACTIVE ~ Relocatio. of/rrigalion Pump (Warren Street) to 'outside' of Utilities Facility; McGee
Services under Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term;
7-23-09: Based on official reqJUest from Utilities Department on July 16,2009 that Lely MSTU 'move the pump
outside ofthe utility sub-statiom' staff has investigated the site with McGee & Associates and is coordinating with
Utilities in (I) moving the pu.np outside of the sub-station; and (2) re-connecting with a new 'tap' the service line.
8-20-09: McGee & Associates Proposal (dated 7-29-09); $2,340.00 total proposal
(L-46) ACTIVE - Median NlO, 3 Project - McGee Services under Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term:
7-16-09: McGee presents "cOlOcept plan" to the Lely MSTU Committee
7.27-09: Delivery of electrom;.; copy of plans is pending from McGee's office for CLM to provide quote per
maintenance contract. CLM "Iuote for installation cost pending.
7-27-09: Staff submittal of ROW Permit Application for the FOOT Type rail confirmed with ROW Dept.
8-20.09: Staff added additional information to ROW Permit Application; Permit Issue pending.
(L-44) ACTIVE ~Doral Circlle "North"- Entrance Landscape Project (adjacent to Hibiscus Golf Property)
McGee Proposal Submitted (dated I 1.20-08)
7-16-09: ROW Plan review progressing; Comments received from Traffic Operations
7-27-09: ROW Permit issue i.. pending; Plans are at Traffic Operations under review.
8-20-09: ROW Permit #09-0303-E is pending issue for project
(L-43): REACTIVATED -o..ral Circle Hedge Project; Rattlesnake Hammock Wall and Landscaping
7-27-09: Staff is currently iR",estigating condition of po do carpus shrubs.
8-20-09: Hannula Landscape <10 continue treatment of shrubs for 'wax scale' found on podocarpus.
(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": Saaff will inspect the project on a 'weekly basis'; Contractor is to provide service
reports within 12 hours of c",,"pletion of any contract service.
(L-45) ACTIVE ~ On Going - McGee Annual LA Services ~ Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term;
6-24-09: Purchasing Department to attend July 16,2009 meeting to review services under RFP/BID # 08-5060
7-16.09: Lely Committee mal..s motion to direct staff to proceed with BVO Process and include 2 representative
members of the MSTU Committee (Bob Slebodnik, David Larson) and also one representative from the Lely
Civic Association. Staff will ,",oordinate with the Committee on this request.
8-20-09: BVO Draft is 'in pro",ess': Confirmation of Lely Civic Association representative for BVO Selection
Committee is pending.
1
..J
<(
z
<
o
~
.
c
~
m
UJ
3:
w
0:::
C
Z
<(
.-:
UJ
. ~
::)
....
UJ
::E
~
W
..J
z
o
~
..J
..J
j!
UJ
Z
-
..J
-
~
....
o
C
LL.
C
W
UJ
o
c..
o
0::
c..
LL.
o
::E
~
C)
<(
-
c
1611
A15
August 20, 2009
Lely MSTU "To Do List"
1. Accident #770; on pebble Beach; CLM estimate for $43'6.26
Status: Repair completed per CLM estimate; Confirmation of re-imbursement through Risk
Management pending. (Action: Salma Nabizad)
Status: Salma Nabizad coordinating with Risk Management on reimbursement.
2. Doral Circle Entrance;
Change order pending for $3,481.50 to increase McGee Work Order to produce the
construction documents. Change Order Completed; McGee's scope is modified to include
construction documents;
Status: ROW Permit Issue Pending; Project bidding to follow ROW Permit Issue
3. St. Andrews Entry Sign 'Refurbishment' (re-mounting of metal rim)
Replacement of Entry sign with curvature.
Status:
8-20-09: SignCraft to provide product sample for Committee review
4. New decorative light; @ bench @ Buena Vista nursing home. - Black Lumec
Status: 8-20-09: Hart's Electrical is to quote the project; Results of Investigation of potential
conflict with Stromwater Easement pending; newly installed FPL electrical line has been
documented to be in area of proposed new light.
5. Doral Hedge Project - Hannula:
Status:
8-20-09: Hannula Landscape has treated podocarpus for 'wax scale' problem. Staff continues to
monitor health of shrubs in coordination with Commercial Land Maintenance.
6. Solar light
Light pole has been painted green per Committee request, however, light is not working
properly
16 I 1
A15
Status:
8-20-09: Hart's Electrical has inspected light and determined that the type of bulb used
for this installation may not be putting out the amount of light required to properly
illuminate the sign. All electrical components appear to be functional. Hart's is
coordinating with manufacturer for alternate type of bulb to use with the DC electrical
solar panel.; Hart's is reviewing LED technology for the application.
7. CLM Estimate EI002519; $515.00 Accident 859;
Status: Estimate Approved; pending completion by contractor; (insurance recovery;
Attn: Salma)
8. CLM Estimate EI002524; $612.00 Accident 864;
Status: Estimate Approved; pending completion by contractor; (insurance recovery;
Attn: Salma)
9. St. Andrews - Median No.3 Project; Refurbishment Project; McGee &
Associates; Under PO 4500103649 'Lely MSTU - Annual Professional Landscape
Architectural Services':
Status: McGee to provide project drawings and bid schedule for staff/Committee
review
10. Confirmation that "all" shrubs have been cut per Committee request on 6-19-09 that
shrubs be 'cut to 18 inch height and held at 24 inch height' maximum.
Status: It is confirmed that CLM has maintained shruhs to the height as
requested by Committee
II. Installation of new Pump Sub Drive: Quote from CLM
Status: 8-20-09: CLM has held off on installation of 'sub-drive' due to the new
project proposal to move the pump which will result in a new VFD pump station
installation.
12. MOVING PUMP FROM OUTSIDE OF WARREN ST. STATION
Status: 8-20-09: McGee & Associates has proposal to provide professional
services to move the pump
13. REVIEW OF PODOCARPUS HEDGE ON RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK
Status: 8-20-09: Hannula Landscape has sprayed the shrubs for 'wax scale'; staff
will review to determine if additional application is necessary; review of project
for plant replacement per warranty will be performed 1" week of Septem ber.
14. FPL damage to irrigation on St. Andrews:
Status: 8-20-09: FPL has repaired the irrigation damage (lines, and heads),
however, there is sod which was damaged due to the FPL work; repair of
damaged sod pending from FPL. (Estimate is that ] to 2 pallets of sod is necessary
to repair)
15. Committee motion (7-16-09) to confirm CLM performance (48 hrs. for irrigation
repairs and 10 days for other maintenance issues (shrub trimming and weeds)
Status: 8-20-09: CLM has addressed the noted deficiencies within the time-frame
specified.
MEMORANDUM
1611 A15
DATE: August 7, 2009
FROM: Sue Filson, Executive Manager
Board of County Commission
TO: Tessie Sillery, Transportation A TM
RE: Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee
As you know, we currently have vacancies on the above-referenced advisory committee. A press
release was issued requesting citizens interested in serving on this committee to submit an
application for consideration. I have attached the applications received for your review as follows:
Tony Branco
147 Pebble Beach Circle
Naples, FL 34113
David C. Larson
163 Dora! Circle
Naples, FL 341 13
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 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
16/J 1 A 1 5
'll1son s
~
,i""",.
'..
Tony B [ljbvista@earthlink.net]
Tuesday, August 04,20094:19 PM
filson_s
sillery_t
Re: Lely Golf Estates Advisory committee
-:::
,.'i~:
MbJect:
: ,): Sue Filson
~~ecutive Manager
[~ard of County Commissioners
': attempted to send the following app via the online form but it didn't appear to transmit?
>:.;. it did, sorry for the duplication.
T:lanks
. 'ony Branco
~visory Board Application Form
.llier County Government
391 E. Tamiami Trail
C'.Clples, FL 34112
,7.39)252-8696
.:.plication previewed on: 8/4/2999 3:51:14 PM.
.,"me: Tony Branco
:,;,me Address: 147 Pebble Beach Circle
Home Phone: 239-793-4364
. :.ty: Naples
Zip Code: 34113
. ':one Numbers
>'!x: 239-793-8446
Business: 239-514-5292
Mail Address: tibvista~arthlink.net
'.ard / Committee Applied for: Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee
'jtegory: Not indicated
',Jrk Place: 5elf Employed
'\'W long have you lived in Collier County: more than 15
;i~ve you ever been convicted of any offense against the law? No
uo you or your employer do business with the County? No
'f'.,.uld you and/or any organizations with whom you are affiliated benefit from decisions or
~?COmmendations made by this advisory board? No
A"e you a registered voter in Collier County? Yes
1
Do you currently hold public office? No
16 I 1 A 15
f'
-
Do you currently or ever served on a Collier County Board or Committee? Yes
4IIlelY Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee 1/28/2803 ->present
Please list your community activities:
Lely Civic Assn. (23yrs)
F-r
.$.
rl
c,
5,
Education:
Bachelors Degree in Economics & Computer Science
Te
f,
,.
,;1;
Experience:
Project Management, Communications Management, Advertising, Photography, Video production, I
Internet Marketing / eCommerce It
It;
Tf
Ad
Co
33
Na
U
Ap,
.
~a
Ho
Cj
Ph
Fa
e-'
Bo
Ca
We
H(~<
Ha
Dr
.
Wo
~'e
:\!
2
,.
,.
.
.
.
16 ~~c!lt~
JUL 2 8 2009
Board of County Commissioners
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 34112
(239) 252.8606
Fax: (239) 252-6406
Board of County GOn'lmissioners
11
-
\
~pplitCation for Advisory Committees/Boards'
Name: I)A VI l> e.., Ht1'Z-S DtJ
Home Address: 1(."7 P{}f2.fH.. .t!.I~<.J..E
Home Phone: <'-:3'1') 7 "l?-'1~/Y
Zip Code: 'J <f II ~
FaxNo. 7f3-~t..lf
Business Phone: (:-19) 7.1,,1- 4 01'" e-mail address: 1oJ,..,.,6
Place of Employment: }./6flAP
..."'o.com.....A..""~ '::~ "-"'0 'AMy P~N'_ _M''''~
Category (if applicable): ~ ~ C>IH<-C>
Example: Commission District, Developer, environmentalist, lay person, etc.
How long have you lived in COllier County: Years: K Months:_
Are you a registered voter in Collier County: Yes......!..... No _
Do you currently hold public office? Yes _ No -.X--Ifso, what is that office?
Have you ever been convicted of any offense against the Law? Yes ~ No _
If yes, explain:
pI.) I - 1"7?-~ .It'I2~ .Af~
Do you or your employer do business with tbe County? Yes _ No ~ If yes, under what circumstances?
Would you andlor any organizations with whom you are affiliated benefit from deeisions or recommendations
made by this advisory board? Yes_NoLIfyes, please list the organizations:
NOTE: All advisory board members must update their pror.Je 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? Y es ~ No If
yes, please list the committeeslboards:
J../St.-Y l'1,rtI
":t-:,.
,
.
.
.
16111
A15
Please list your communia, activities (civie clubs, neighborhood associations, etc. and positions held:
L~v'-f >'15r&>
f3oll:-f2.O ~ P Htf7'.U;" "LJ,I"-f:1~ /lSC;O""4'1'TON'
Education:
tJ, f'!.f+O v~ P^V~01l.C ~"'I\- /'fee 1-1 S/9.NoO '-
fl-Vl'J V~.f; ~ r"'~ <>~"'- {tV /.e7s I'rl/~ BusS
Experience:, /I(A--1l/ a~.JHt": ~ ~r-1/I),o /A.J J-t~ ~~e(" l"'rtn... '"!'O y.e;;...,u;
, OJA,J~ A-1\.D 6P,r~ A-D I/"'~~ JAV<<. A4J1i>AJq IAI L"'" A?Jc.~("
,. ()P/v_ Arf"P .,~ RA-te-~ R/Sr-tJRht\Ao IN' Lo<;IbJC"'u~.
w G~~#It.. I"b7I.. f>r":rrO/'rteg IN #~
. e{.lS~__s~~ 1i:>n .tLutrv... ~e ec.JJL.f)c,~5 ,AJ/LJIff1/E~ ..,...~
~ <:,~ lf~~
Please attach any additional ilf/iwllUltlonYOM/Hlp4?rtinent. This application should beforwanled to Sue Filso~ Executive
Manage,. to the Boord of COIIIIIJI' Colllnt/ulOlle1Sp 3301 East TamJamj Trail, Naples, FL 34112. If you wish, please fax you,
application to (239)J5Ja6406 OTe-lIUIiI to ,geFL~-1)lliel'f!ov.nel. Thank you fo, volunteering to serve the citizens of
Collier County.
16\ ~L ~
()::~'-<~(
RECEIVfili)LIER COUNTY LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD F~I, \0~ '
SEP 24 2009 Wednesday, August 19, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. Halas _ _~
Board of County Commissioners Henning -r 0 .
Coyle .
Headquarters Librarv Coletta ;[tt /IJP
I
AGENDA
Call to order
Approval of Minutes
Literacy Program Report
Report of Officers
Communications
a - Written
b - Personal
Unfinished Business
1. Employee of the Month - July and August
2. Old GG Library Building
3. Rose Hall
4. FY10 Budget
s. South Regional
New Business
General Considerations
Director's Report
/
Report of the Friends
Misc. eon.:
Datrd.Qj 2-1 J D:f
ftem#J [01-( \)k (to
Adjournment
- ~')'
RE.CE.\\IE.O
SE\' 1 ~ 1~
_~;;s\one(S
~co"."
.l.otC01.lO.,
soaru
1611 ~f6~~v
~~c09
COLLIER COUNTY LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
Headquarters Librarv
Wednesday, September 16, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.
AGENDA
Call to order
Approval of Minutes
Literacy Program Report
Report of Officers
Communications
a - Written
b - Personal
Unfinished Business
1. Employee of the Month - September
2. Old GG Library Building
3. Rose Hall
4. FYI 0 Budget
5. South Regional
6. Policies
New Business
General Considerations
Director's Report
Report of the Friends
Adjournment
Mile. Cones:
Date:
Item#:
. c,,", Ii:
1611
A16
Naples, Florida, June 17, 2009
LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date in regular session at 10:00 a.m.
in the Conference Room at the Headquarters Library with the following members present:
CHAIR: Doris J. Lewis
VICE-CHAIR: Loretta Murray
Connie Bettinger-Hennink
Gina Downs
Rochelle Z. Lieb
ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director
Linda Fasulo, Executive Director, FOL
Roberta Reiss, Literacy Coordinator
Carla Grieve, Board Member, FOL
Luz Pietri, Administrative Assistant
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mrs. Lewis asked for comments or corrections to the minutes of the regular monthly meeting of May 20,
2009. There being none, Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink moved, seconded by Mrs. Murray and carried
unanimously, that the minutes be approved. Mrs. Lewis then asked for approval of the minutes from the
annual meeting, also held on this day. Mrs. Lieb moved, seconded by Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink and
carried unanimously, that the annual meeting minutes be approved as submitted.
LITERACY PROGRAM REPORT
Mrs. Reiss reported that she has started a 'Conversation Club' at the South Regional Library which meets
on Tuesdays in the morning and in the afternoon. She stated that she has received very good feedback
from the students. Some Board members offered to help spread the word to parents of school children
about Outreach Literacy Programs. Mrs. Matthes mentioned that she would be looking into updating or
replacing the Ellis Language software programs at both the Immokalee and Golden Gate branches.
REPORT OF OFFICERS - None
COMMUNICATIONS - None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
The Board reviewed the nominations submitted for selection of the Library's Employee of the Month.
Mrs. Murray moved, seconded by Mrs. Lieb and carried unanimously, to select Kara Godwin, Library
Assistant at the Headquarters Library, as EOM for June 2009.
In reference to the old Golden Gate Library building, Mrs. Matthes stated that the Board of County
Commissioners had approved the project. A lease agreement is being prepared and should be going to
the BCC for their approval in the near future.
16111 A16
In reference to the Rose Hall, Mrs. Matthes stated that the contractor is in the process of ordering all
the materials for that project. She added that the project should be completed in about five months.
She also said that the Marco Island Branch will probably have to be closed for part of August due to the
renovations. The staff would be either taking vacations or working at another branch.
As for the FYlO Budget, Mrs. Matthes handed out copies of the proposed Library budget. She explained
briefly some of the contents and answered questions from the Board members. Some of the major
highlights discussed included the possibility of closing three of the library branches and more staff lay-
offs ifthe budget is red uced by 15%.
The possibility of charging for DVD check outs is also being considered. Mrs. Matthes explained that
doing this can be very complicated. She handed out a sheet explaining all the ramifications involved.
One of the Board members suggested the pOSSibility of charging for library cards. The Director stated
that doing this would put the library in danger of losing both, state grants and state aid.
In reference to the South Regional Library, Mrs. Matthes reported that the library was functioning well.
More furniture was received and the rest of the furniture is expected soon. Staff is still working on
signage. Mrs. Murray mentioned that a resident of Verona Walk had approached her with the idea of
conducting private tours of the new library. Mrs. Matthes didn't see a problem with this idea.
NEW BUSINESS - None
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Mrs. Lewis asked if the write ups on each Employee of the Month were seen by everybody. Mrs.
Matthes responded that the write ups were distributed within all of the libraries.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Mrs. Matthes discussed the County's Productivity Committee's Recommendations in regards to the
Library. This committee had suggested, among other things, that $200,000 of the requirement for
additional materials be taken from the Library Trust Fund, instead of being paid from the General Fund.
To use part-time staff and volunteers to keep the branches open as many days as possible. Also, the
committee felt that DVD's should be dropped from the collection. The committee stated that the
Library spent 1.3 million on DVD's!VHS in the last three years, but the Director said this is erroneous.
This is actually the value of DVD's currently owned.
REPORT OF THE FRIENDS
Mrs. Fasulo stated that the Friends are in the process of a software conversion to keep track of
memberships more effectively. They have also created new stationary, envelopes and cards with their
new logo on them. There's a new campaign to raise funds to be launched in November. New brochures
are also being printed. She also stated that a FOl member had donated $1,000 for mental health causes.
The Friends will be holding a mental health seminar at the South Regional Branch on November 3, 2009,
one to be held in the morning for students, one in the afternoon for residents and one in the evening for
professionals in the field. Also, on November 6,2009, the Friends will be having a Casino Night with a
silent auction. The cost is $40 for the public and $25 for Friends and Library staff. The Friends are
1611
A16
asking local companies to supply prizes and table sponsorships. The Friends are looking for table
sponsors for $250, $500 and $1,000 each which will include additional perks. Mrs. Fasulo reported that
the BCC was presented with a check for $10,000 from the North Naples residents to pay for two part
time positions to keep the Vanderbilt Beach Branch open on Fridays. Lastly, she stated that 360 Lecture
Series tickets have been sold so far and urged the Board members to purchase theirs before tickets are
gone. This coming year, the lectures will be held at the Grande Beach Resort in order to accommodate
more people.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Lieb moved, seconded
by Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink and carried unanimously, that the meeting be adjourned. Time: 11:45 a.m.
Approved by:
.-~,
~j~
(
\
I
'j
r
~,-~r'\O
Doris J. Lewis
Chair, Library Advisory Board
16 11
A16
Naples, Florida, August 19, 2009
LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date in regular session at 10:00 a.m.
in the Conference Room of the Headquarters library with the following members present:
VICE-CHAIR: Loretta Murray
Connie Bettinger-Hennink
Gina D. Downs
Rochelle Z. lieb
ABSENT: Doris J. Lewis, Chair
ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Matthes, library Director
linda Fasulo, Executive Director, FOL
Carla Grieve, Member, Board of the Friends
Roberta Reiss, literacy Coordinator
Luz Pietri, Administrative Assistant
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mrs. Murray asked for comments or corrections to the minutes of June 17, 2009. Mrs. Fasulo pointed
out a couple of errors under the Friends Report. Errors were noted and corrected. Mrs. lieb moved,
seconded by Ms. Downs and carried unanimously, that the minutes be approved as corrected.
LITERACY PROGRAM REPORT
Mrs. Reiss reported that this has been a month of planning for the new season. She also stated that she
has been recruiting students for the 'Conversational Club' at the South Regional library. There will be
an announcement in the children/adult program booklets this fall to recruit students for the
'Conversational Club'. There will be advanced classes and beginners' classes separately. Mrs. Reiss also
stated that she's looking for some type of outside learning capabilities for her students via library
computers or home computers. One of the Board members suggested contacting the Naples FreeNet
for free online computer access for her students.
Mrs. Matthes commented that the library is looking at a new language learning program similar to the
Rosetta Stone that patrons will be able to check out. It's now being reviewed by library staff.
REPORT OF OFFICERS - None
COMMUNICATIONS - None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
The Board reviewed the nominations submitted for selection of the library's Employee of the Month for
the months of July and August. Mrs. Murray moved, seconded by Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink and carried
unanimously, to select Kathy Hemmat, Children's librarian at the Golden Gate Branch, as EOM for the
month of July. Mrs. Bettinger-Hennink moved, seconded by Mrs. lieb and carried unanimously, to
select Danielle Blanco, Library Assistant at the East Naples Branch library, as EOM for the month of
August 2009.
1611 A16
In reference to the old Golden Gate Library building, Mrs. Matthes stated that the County has signed the
land lease already. The Collier County Leadership Council on Aging is in the process of setting up a
committee to include library staff to work on design of the building both, inside and out. The Leadership
Council would like to start the 211 Service as soon as possible, so Marilyn Matthes has offered them the
use of one of the unused offices at the Headquarters Library as the initial set up site. The first meeting
regarding this will be held on August 28th at 1:30 p.m. at Marla Ramsey's Office. Mrs. Matthes noted the
Board members may attend.
In reference to the Rose Hall, Mrs. Matthes reported that the foundation for this project is up. Because
of the work that needs to be done, the Library will have to be closed the whole month of September.
Some of the staff will be taking vacation, while others will be working at other libraries. Signs have been
posted and a press release has been sent out.
In reference to the Fiscal Year 2010 budget, Mrs. Matthes stated that hearings will be held in the second
and fourth week of September. The Library budget has been cut by 3%. No libraries are expected to
close. Mrs. Matthes also commented that the property owners in the North Naples area will be again
making another donation of $29,000.00 to the BCC in order to keep the Vanderbilt Beach Library open
on Fridays for the first six months of this coming fiscal year. Ms. Downs was concerned with the fact
that this is not a long time arrangement and that we're fast approaching a private/public partnership
with its ramifications. Ms. Downs was concerned that some other sections of the County that are less
affluent might see this as an unfair arrangement. Ms. Downs stated that she strongly believes in the
'Fees for Service' notion. Ms. Downs handed out copies of a report from the Productivity Committee in
reference to Library funding issues. Mrs. Matthes agreed with some of her concerns. She commented
that the Pelican Bay residents were considering a special taxing system that would include revenues for
library services for that district. Mrs. Fasulo also commented that she had heard from residents ofthe
Estates who were considering the collection of funds to keep the Estates Library open longer, just like in
Vanderbilt Beach.
Mrs. Matthes stated that as a result of the budget discussions she was asked to come up with a
comparison of how much competition the Library's DVD circulation is to stores like Blockbusters and
whether the Library should continue to purchase and circulate first-run DVD feature films. The general
consensus was that Blockbuster or any other video circulating stores do not consider the public library
to be competition. The LAB did not take any action to change the types of materials purchased by the
Library. The second study she was asked to do was to consider self -check stations. She said she already
had been studying this service, even before it was suggested. She was concerned with security issues.
There are other considerations besides the self -check stations.
In reference to the South Regional Library, Mrs. Matthes reported that most of the furniture for that
building has arrived. The rest of the furniture and books are expected to arrive at anytime. She also
stated that this branch is having problems with mosquitoes. The County is working on the signage issue.
NEW BUSINESS - None
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS - None
1611A16
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Mrs. Matthes handed out copies of the Technology Plan Goals for Fiscal Year 2010 as part of the Long
Range Plan. She asked the Board to read it and e-mail her with any suggestions or changes. She
commented that the State Library is in the process of applying for a Broadband Grant on behalf of all
libraries in the state. If this grant is awarded, Mrs. Matthes would like to replace computers and
network connections at some of the branches and purchase laptop computers, some of which might be
able to be checked out. As part of this grant, a consultant would be available. The Library needs to
come up with a matching fee which the FOL have already agreed to offer. Mrs. Matthes stated that
she's also applying for a grant for the visually impaired for the new Senior Center with matching funds
coming from The Lighthouse, the Collier County Association for the Blind and possibly other
organizations.
REPORT OF THE FRIENDS
Mrs. Fasulo reminded the Board members about the upcoming Red, White and Roulette Casino Night
fundraiser to be held on November 6,2009 from 7:00 -11:00 p.m. at the Naples Italian American Club.
Ticket price includes hot and cold hors d'oeuvres, one adult beverage and an opportunity to win exciting
prizes. A disk jockey will provide music, and a silent auction is also planned. The Friends are looking for
table sponsors for Red, White and Roulette and suggested that if Board members knew of any
businesses or individuals who might like to be a sponsor to have them contact the Friends office.
Sponsorships range from $250 to $5,000 for this event. Admission is $25 per person for Friends
Members and Library staff and $40.00 for the general public. Tickets are on sale now. She also
mentioned the upcoming 2010 Nick Linn Lecture Series, which will include, among others, author James
Patterson and Dennis Lehane. The Friends are also seeking corporate sponsors for this fund raiser.
Sponsorships range from $250 to $20,000. A sponsor at the $20,000 level will share their table with
each guest and also enjoy a host of other privileges. A third event coming up is the 'Friends Only'
Member Appreciation Night, tentatively scheduled for Friday, January 15, 2010 from 7 - 10 p.m. The
location has not yet been chosen, but is expected to be one of the regional libraries or possibly the
Hilton Naples. The Library's Audio Books distributor has agreed to provide the keynote speaker, one of
two gentlemen who are readers for the James Patterson recorded books. Books-A-Million has been
invited to sell James Patterson hardcover and audio books at the event. Mrs. Fasulo stated that the
Friends would welcome a limited number of volunteers to help with each of these fundraisers. Those
interested may contact the FOL office.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Lieb moved, seconded
by Ms. Downs and carried unanimously, that the meeting be adjourned. Time: 11:55 a.m.
Approved by:
(.~j..-<.._ '. l, .
l'" \) VV) \ ~
Doris J. Lewis Q
Chair, Library Advisory Board
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
RE.CE.\\IE.O Coletta c 1 ,
SEP 1 ~ lINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PARKS AND
,os\Qll8!5
dofCOUO\'/C",""" RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
BOiJ
16 /1
A17/
August 19,2009
Naples, Florida, August 19,2009
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, in
and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date
at 2:00 P.M., at the North Collier Regional Park in the Administration Building in
Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: John P. Ribes
VICE CHAIRMAN: Edward "Ski" Olesky
Barbara Buehler
Paul Nyce
Kerry Geroy
David Saletko
ALSO PRESENT: Kerry Runyon, Regions Manager
Tony Ruberto, Sr. Project Manager
Tona Nelson, Sr. Administrative Assist.
Peg Ruby, Marketing Specialist \i.sc, Cones:
D*.m.l'2--1 J D9'
,emf: lto lL i') A q
1
':l\lIII1Il:
16 /1
.\17
August 19, 2009
I. Call to Order
Chairman Ribes called the meeting to order at 2:02 PM.
II. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and Invocation was held.
III. Approval of Agenda
Mr. Olesky moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following changes:
. Item VII. - Marketing Highlights to be heard after item V. b.
. Addition of Item VI. b - Recommendation & Approval for re-naming of Mar-
good Park.
. Removal of item VIII. - Recreation Highlights
Second by Ms. Geroy. Carried unanimously 5-0.
IV. Approval of June 17,2009 minutes
Mr. Olesky moved to approve the minutes of the June 17, 2009 meeting subject to the
following change:
Page 2, Item IV. - from "Second by Ms. Geroy" to "Second by Ms. Buehler."
Second by Ms. Geroy. Carried unanimously 5-0.
Mr. Nyce arrived at 2:07pm
V. New Business
a) Directors Highlights
Kerry Runyon, Regional Manager noted Freedom Park has received its Certificate of
Occupancy for the Educational Building with a slated completion date for the
remaining improvements of August 31, 2009. The Grand Opening is set for October 6,
2009 at 10:00 a.m.
b) Employee of the Month for May & July
Ed Torroni was recognized as Employee of the Month for May 2009.
Kenny Owens was recognized as Employee of the Month for July 2009.
c) Recommendation & Approval of Advisory Board Member
The Board reviewed the applications for new membership submitted by Bart Zino and
Phillip Broughman.
Mr. Zino addressed the Board noting he previously served on the Board and had to
resign due to the "appearance ofa conflict of interest." Following investigation, the
issues have been resolved and his appointment would be subject to the Board of County
Commissioners granting a waiver for the conflict of interest.
Mr. Broughman addressed the Board noting he has been a resident of Fiddlers Creek
for approximately 10 years and has been involved in numerous community activities.
He will dedicate the full attention required to fulfill the position if appointed.
2
16, J 1 .~ 1 7
August 19, 2009
The Board members cast ballots for the appointments. Mr. Zino received the most
votes, followed by Mr. Broughman. The information will be forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners
d) Recommendation & Approval ofthe Naples International Festival- Jim Gaitens
He represented St. Peter, The Apostle Church and appeared before the Board
requesting permission to hold the "Naples International Festivaf' at Sudgen Park on
February 27 and 28 of2010. He highlighted the following:
. Will consist of Food Vendors, Music and Dance, Arts and Craft Vendors
and Amusements and Games based on a variety of International Cultures.
. Approximately 5000 persons expected to attend over 2 days.
. Free admission with $5 charge for parking.
. Proceeds will benefit Saint Peter, The Apostle Church Parish.
. Requested permission for daily beer sales from 12 noon to 7 pm
. Collier County Sheriffs Department and Emergency Management Services
will be provided at the expense of the Event Organizer.
. Parking will be provided on site, in an adjacent Plaza, or at Government
Center with a shuttle as necessary.
Mr. Nyce expressed concern there has not been an informational meeting held with the
neighborhood informing them of the proposed Event.
Ms. Geroy moved to approve the Request including the sale of beer, contingent on
approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Second by Mr. Olesky. Motion
carried 5 'yes" -1 "no." Mr. Nyce voted "no."
The Board suggested the Organizers meet with any applicable neighborhoods to inform
them of the Event. It was noted the second annual Champ Series Boat Race Event is
being held at Sudgen Park in November 2009. No major complaints from the
neighborhood were reported from last year's event.
Staff directed Mr. Gaitens to contact Murdo Smith, Beach and Water Superintendent
regarding the Event.
e) Recommendation & Approval of the East Naples Great Boat Project - Kiwanis
Club
Steve Sherman and Laurel Butler of the Kiwanis Club appeared before the Board
requesting permission to place a donated boat in the East Naples Community Park for
use as a piece of "playground equipment." The following was highlighted:
. Kiwanis is a global organization of volunteers dedicated to changing the
world, one child and one community at a time.
. The boat was donated, originally built in 1965,47 feet in length and was
being restored by the owner until the time he passed away.
. The placement of the boat will be completed at the expense of the Kiwanis.
. The boat will be "nested" in the ground, structurally altered to provide for a
safe play environment, and fenced in for security purposes.
3
1611 AI?
August 19,2009
. All necessary permits will be obtained with design features taking into
account drainage, structural safety, etc.
. The Organizers have met with Staff to address any concerns and will
continue to work closely with Staff on the endeavor.
. The vessel will be placed in a storm water retention area and the proposal
may require an amendment from South Florida Water Management District
for a permit.
The Board noted there will be ongoing upkeep and maintenance of the vessel.
Laurel Butler recognized the County does not want to incur any costs (current or
future) in the project and stated maintenance should not be a problem as the
Organization has a strong network of volunteers.
Mr. Nyce moved to recommend approval of the above proposaL Second by
Ms. Geroy. Carried unanimously 6-0.
VI. Old Business
a) Little League Sponsorship Sigus - Gulf Coast Little League
Mr. Nyce moved to table the item until the next meeting. Second by Mr. Olesky.
Carried unanimously 6-0.
b) Recommendation & Approval for re-naming Mar-Good Park.
The Board reviewed the document ''Naming Policy for "MarGood Harbor Park" -
Request approval from P ARAB on the naming of MarGood Harbor Park. "
Ms. Buhler moved to recommend changing the name of Mar-Good Park to
"MarGood Harbor Park." Second by Mr. Olesky. Carried unanimously 6-0.
VII. Marketing Highlights - Peg Ruby (previously heard after item V.b.)
The Board reviewed the Parks and Recreation Department Fall 2009 publication for
R.E.A.L Guide (Recreation/EducationlActivities/Leisure Guide).
An update was provided on the "Ice Cream Social" held at Sudgen Park on July 25, 2009.
VIII. Recreation Highlights - Kayak Camp - Patricia Rosen
Removal as per agenda change.
IX. Capital Project Highlight-Golden Gate Community Park Water Slide - Tony Ruberto
A Slideshow was shown on the construction of the new Water Slides at Golden Gate
Community Park.
X. Informational Items
Submitted
XI. Adopt a Park - Ski Olesky
Mr. Nyce stated he is resigning from the Board due to relocation.
4
1611 A1?
August 19,2009
He provided his Adopt-A-Park Report noting Barefoot Beach Preserve/Access, Connor
Neighborhood Park, Vineyards Community Park, North Collier Regional Park and
Veterans Community Park are in good condition.
In closing, he expressed concern over the lack of participation of issues affecting the Parks
and Recreations Department by the various Recreational Groups and public who utilize
County Park Services
XII. Public Comments
None
Meetiml Attendance
Mr. Nyce had arrived at 2:07 PM.
There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjourned
by order of the Chair at 3:25 PM.
These Minutes approved by the Board/Committee on
as presented J'- or as amended_.
5
~i:::S J\~~/L'
Henning <r ~ /
g~r~~a i i I r~f)
1611
I /
. ~i<8:IVED
SEP 2 1 2009
PEUCAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit
Board of County Commlsstoners
NOTICE OF PUBliC MEETING
MONDAY, JULY 13,2009
THE PELICAN .I3AY SERVICES DIVISION ADVISORY BOARD Will MEU iN REGULAR
SESSION, MONDAY, JULY 13, 2009 AT 1:00 PM AT THE HAMMOCK OAK COMMUNITY
CENTER, 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES.
AGENDA
The'~genda includes, but is not limited:
1. Roll Call
2. Welcome Administrator, Neil DoniII
3. Approval of June 11, 2009 PBSD Meeting Minutes
4. Chairwoman's Report
a) Pelican Bay Foundation's Strategic Planning Committee Update and Presentation
5. Approval of April 27, 2009 Budget Committee Meeting Minutes
6. Approval of May 11, 2009 Budget Committee Meeting Minutes
7. Approval of May 15, 2009 Safety Committee Meeting Minutes
8. Committee Reports and/or Requests
Budget Committee
Safety Committee
9. Community Issues
10. New Business
a) Plant growth on the west side of the berm (Mr. Tom Cravens)
11. Audience Comments
12. Adjoumment
SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES
ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY
DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO ANY
MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS
AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS 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. CoIres:
DatI: l D 12-1 l 0'7
llemt: l01LlJAl<6
':.:pies to:
Fiala~ -
Halas -
Henning- 3 '. .
g~r~~a = '4 ~ (!L
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit
16 1 1 ~Jc~NEDv
SEP 2 1 2009
.
F.jGdra OJ County COtnmIAliO/'f'"
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5,2009
T ::: PELlC:, f "i';FRVICES DIVISION ADVISORY BOARD WILL MEET iN REGULAR
S::S:;jON, A':n.:E:dJAY, AUGUST 5, 2009 AT 1:00 PM lIT THE HAMMOCK OAK
C.IVMUNllY Cf r!F,. 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE NAPLES.
AGENDA
The agenda includes, but is not limited:
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of July 13, 2009 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
3. Administrator's Report
a) Discussion of Strategic Planning Committee's Scope of Services Inter-local Agreement
between Services Division and Foundation.
b) Discussion of Staff Annual Wort Plan, Board Requests and Expectations
c) Discussion of Plans for Website
d) Discussion of Preference for Verbatim or Condensed Meeting Minutes
4. Chairwoman's Report
a) Commercial Interests Advisory Board Applicant. Review application and make
recommendation.
b) Discussion of need to reestablish meetings of the Clam Bay Committee
c) Discussion of Web Services Invoice
5. Capital Projects
a) Discussion and Update ofthe North Tram Station #8 Pedestrian Walkway
6. Community Issues
a) Update on west side of benn mangrove die-off area, water management system and
monitoring report
7. Committee Reports and/or Requests
8. Old Business
a) Discussion to video record Board meetings and negotiate with Foundation to televise
on Channel 95
9. New Business
10. Audience Comments
11. 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, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS
AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS 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:
nemt:
Copies 10;
1611A18
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
PELICAN BAY SUVICES DIVISION ADVISORY BOARD
July 13, liMB
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the PeIiaon Bay Senkes DivIsion Advisory Boan!. in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on Monday, July 13, liMB at I:" PM in Regular Session at the
Hammock Oak Community Center, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108, with the following members
present:
Mary Anne Womble, Chairwoman
Tom Cravens
Keith Dallas
Geoffrey Gibson
Ted Gravenhorst
John Iaizzo
Michael Levy
Gerald Moffatt
Hunter Hansen
Theodore Raja (excused absence)
Also Present: Neil Dorrill, Administrator, Pelican Bay Services Division; Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager,
Pelican Bay Services, Division; Mary McCaugbby, Recording Secretary, Pelican Bay Services Division; and Lisa
Resnick, Administrative Assistant, Pelican Bay Services Division.
AGENDA
I. Roll Call
2. Welcome Administrator, Neil DorriII
3. Approval of June II, 2009 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
4. Chairwoman's Report
a) Pelican Bay Foundation's Strategic Planning Committee Update and Presentation
5. Approval of April 27, 2009 Budget Committee Meeting Minutes
6. Approval of May 11,2009 Budget Committee Meeting Minutes
7. Approval of May 15,2009 Safety Committee Meeting Minutes
8. Committee Reports and/or Requests
a) Budget Committee
b) Safety Committee
9. Community Issues
10. New Business
a) Mangrove overgrowth on west side of the berm
II. Audience Comments
12. Adjournment
ROLL CALL
Chairwoman Womble called the meeting to Older at I p.ID- Ms. McCaughtry took roll and with the
exception of Dr. T cd Raia (excused,) all Board memk,. were present.
WELCOME ADMINISTRATOR NEIL DORRlLL
Chairwoman Womble formally inlroduced Mr. Neil DorriII, Pelican Bay Services Division's new
Administrator and briefly presented Mr. DorriII' s backgrOlmd and experience. Mr. Dorrill is President of the Dorrill
Management Group, his community management and consulting company based in Naples. Dorrill Management
Group's (DMG) principal clients include large master planned C<>~uwHlies tbrougbout Southwest Florida. Mr.
Dorril\ thanked the Board and expressed his delight and excitement as he commences as Pelican Bay Services
8099
Pelican Bay Services Division s..-ry Meetlnll Minutes
July 13,2009
1611 A18
Division's Administrator. He also said that be believes by this lime next year, the Board will be very happy with his
management of the Services Division.
APPROVAL OF TIlE JUNE 11. 2009 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
Mr. Cravens made a motion to approve the Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Minutes of June
I I, 2009. Mr. Levy seconded the motion with discussion and amendments. The BoanI received copies of Mr. Levy's
amendments and they were as follows:
On page 8071 the fourth sentence should read, "This will be the thin! year in a row that the Services
Division has either reduced or has not had an increase in the assessment."
In the second paraglllph on that page, about two thirds of the way down it should read, "If you look at the
top line Wlder revenue we have $2,I70,ooocany forward to capital projects, $111,000 less thau it was when it left
the Budget Committee. The reason being that when the budget was coosIructed, SI I 1,000 of expenses which
occurred early in the year for some now completed capital ~ects """' not picked up namely the Oakmont
irrigation and Bollard lighting on Vanderbilt Beach Road Picking up the $1 11,000 of expenses reduced the carry
forward to $2,170,000."
The last sentence of that paragraph should read, "The ouly thing that is not in there are the two -and one-
half month' s cash flow for operations that is $631,000 and the equipmemre=ve ofSI66,ooo."
On page 8072. the last sentence in the first paragraph should read, ''The same three numbers for 2009 come
to $3,039,000, or if you will, $52,000 more than in the 2010 proposed budget." In the second paragraph, the second
sentence, "Board ofCoWlty Commissioners" should read "the County budget staff." In the last sentence where it
says, "all carry forward reserves," the woIds "Clam Bay" should be added before the woId "reserve" to read, "All
carry forward Clam Bay re=ves... "
On page 8073 just below the middIe of the page should read, "So the changes on this handout fiom the
book you received previously are the things we talli:ed about and they are the $56,000 reduction ofFWld I II and the
Pelican Bay Clam Bay assessment We cannot use the $56,000 ~.. milleD/ in Clam Bay and we have moved it OVer
to capital projects. Previously we were transfutring $140,000 of carry forward fiom Clam Bay to the capital projects.
We cannot do that now. The capital projects budget number has gone down by S90,OOO, whicb is equal 10 the
removal of the $ I 40,000 Clam Bay cany forward lnmsfers minus the S56,ooo increase in assessments. It is about a
net of $90,000 reduction to the capilsl projects."
8100
Pelican Bay Services Division SamDWIY Meeting MiD"te.
July 13, 2009
16'1 A18
Mr. 0...-. -<<" __ to ~tIIe Peliaur JJ.y Senicn lJioisiMoAihDory
Botud ArllUlles uf J"ne 11, 2f/tJ,. Mr_ Levy Sft'I>> .. i tile __...,. Jisnlaaion_4
",,"'. .....A WilIl_ funMr tlisausion or ~ IIIe BoIlrtl IIppTOVefl
- . :t. AI nlIII, IIIe J_ 11, 2t1fJ9lf1edi"lf lfIinlll4
PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION'll STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMlTI'EE UPDATE AND LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT "SCOPE OF SERVICES" PRESENTATION BY MR. KEVIN MANGAN. PRINCIPAL
LANDSCAPEARCHl1T.CT. WfiSONMll.I.ER
Chairwoman Womble introduced 1he next item, a presen/alioo by Mr. Kevin Mangan, 1he Principal
Landscape Architect from Wilson Miller. Wilson Miller is the landscape architecture firm chosen by the Pelican Bay
F onndation'. Strategic Planning Committee'. Subcommittee for Landscape Architecture to develop a "Scope of
Service." a. snggested in 1he Pelican Bay Foundation.s Strategic Plan
Ms. Ronnie Bellone, Co-Vice Cbairof1he Foundation's Strategic Planning Committee provided the
backgronnd and PlDJ'Ose of 1he Strategic Planning Committee's Refmed Draft "Scope of Services" for Landscape
Architecture. one facet of the Strategic Plan In summary, the Strategic Plan is an integrated commnnity plan
designed to be implemented over time. The Stmtegic Plan looks at Pelican Bay in it. entirety nsing a holistic
approach and conceptual design perspective and improve it by addressing safety, seewity, streetscape, lighting,
pathways. The Landscaping Subcommittee evaluated and interviewed landscape architecture firms and chose
Wilson Miller to propose a landscape architecture "Scope of Services" for Pelican Bay.
Mr. Merlin Lickhalter, Co-Vice Chair of the Foundation's Strategic Planning Committee began by
clarifying that today'. presentation of 1he Landseape Architecture "Scope of Services" is only one piece of the
implementation reqnired from 1he Strategic Plan The Strategic Plan is mnch more comprehensive and inclndes
programs, services, facilities, beaches and more.
REVIEW OF REFINED DRAFf LANDSCAPE ARCIDTECTURE "SCOPE OF SERVICES"
Pelican Bay Services Division Boord members were given 1he opportunity to provide input prior to today's
meeting and two suggestions were received. Mr. Lickhal1er reviewed those suggestions and made recommendations.
I. Develop detailed master streetscape plan and recommendations for landscape materials and inigation
improvements in public right of way with consideration for "Going Green. " Services Division Board member
suggested exploring "Going Green" alternatives. Mr. Lickhalter' S respollSe on behalf of the Strategic P1anntng
Committee was to change the verbiage to read. "undertake these activities with comideration for sustainability
8101
Pelican Bay Servkes Division Summary Meeting Minutes
July 13, 2M
16 I 1 AI 1 8
consistent with current good design practices and applicable ",commendations and "'gulations of local, state, and
federal agencies, allofwhom have a stake in sustainahilily. "
2. The second and only other Services Division Board member comment received dealt with the lighting and the
lightingjixtu"'s. The Strategic PllllUling Committee made a suggestion to change the verbiage to ",ad, "Develop
recommendations for improvements in compliance with 'lJaTt Sky' criteria n "Dark Sly" criteria meaning
nationally "'cognized criteria for lighting that does not pollute the environment"
Mr. Kevin Mangan introduced his landscape arehitecture linn Wilson Miller. He emphasized Wilson
Miller's extensive history with Pelican Bay and the many communities that share "DNA of Pelican Bay" which has
always been on the cutting edge of sustainability and green initiatives, even before it was en vogue. Wilson Miller's
goal is to continue along the concept of sustainability for a mature community and best maintenance practices,
designed for long term operations and maintenance of landscaping. signage, irrigation, water management, lighting,
pathways, safety and security, aesthetic qualities, updating rules and regulations, ADA compliance, and teclmology
is in their purview. Mr. Mangan stressed \hat this is a huge undertaking \hat has many challenges. The process has
no single solution and no ideas right now are had ones. The past several years were spent gathering information and
ideas and they will continue to do \hat and try to ens..-e checks and halances. A lot of work, ideas should be shared
at each stage to determine priorities, the overnll cost.benefit criteria, fmancial., ecological, etc.
Chairwoman Womble emphasized that the Slmtegic Plan is a very buge and complex project. The goal is to
integrate the Services Division and Foundation goals together, without stepping on each other's toes, utilize monies
appropriately, and work together grndoally towan! a wider goal, rather than doing things by ')>iecemeal". If
everyone is informed and allowed input along the way, it will min;mi7p' bad ideas and displeaslD"e with the results.
Ms. Bellone acknowledged Chairwoman Womble's explanation.
Mr. Gibson requested copies of the presentation fur each Board member because it was hard to see it on the
screen. Chairwoman Womble requested ""pies of the jlIeSenlation from Mr. ~ who said 1hat he would
comply and staff will distribnte.
Mr. Hansen stated that his Board membership represents the commercial interests from Naples Grande and
asked if there was a level of involvement in the Slmtegic Plan project. He also asked what Mr. Mangan envisioned
for the commercial interests in the comm.unity.
8102
Peliean Bay Services Division Summary Meeting MiIIutea
July 13, 2009
1611A18
In response to Mr. Hansen, Mr. Mangan said that the effort of gathering information for the Strategic Plan
has been in process for over two years. It was his understanding that early on COIllllleIliial interests were invited to
community workshops to pmvide their input and perspective from a business standpoint and the intent was for those
ideas to be incorporated into the Strategic Plan. Mr. Mangan said that by his best estimate, bnt oot specific, that
traffic, safety, and security elements may be of interest to the commercial side.
Mr. Hansen said that be only raised the comment because it is a relevant relationship and there shonId be
some level of involvement.
Mr. Mangan responded Wilson Miller works in three marketplares and they are communities, urban
environments and leisure environments that inclndes hotels, so it is the intent that commercial interests be an
integrated part of the Strategic Plan because hotels are part of the community and everyone is a participant
Mr. Gravenhorst asked what the priorities are if there is a conflict. What takes precedence over a conflict
with visual commWlity beautification and safety and security because one will atrect the other.
Mr. Mangan responded that in his opinion it would not be the oonsultant's priorities, but jointly decided by
the community tlrrough representatives from the Services Division and the FowxIation based on all the information
that the consnItant makes available.
Mr. Gravenhorst said that the COIlDDnnity wants to know what they are spending their money on, so the
priorities should be identified.
Chairwoman Womble explained that no priorities have been identified and that Wilson Miller wonId
evaluate and come back to the Strategic PIarming Committee and the Services Division with recommendations. At
that time, it wonId be hoth groups making that decision. She also said that implementation will take time because it
is a huge project
Mr. laizzo said that the "Scope of Services" effort needs approval by residents of the community and in
writing.
Chairwoman Womble and Mr. LickhaIter explained that there were town baIl meetings and a survey and
the results were incorporated into the Strategic Plan.
Mr. laizzo restated that the residents shonld approve or disapprove of eacb item on the "Scope of Services."
Mr. Cravens commented that in the pis!, generalized resident inpnt was provided and referred to bicycle
paths. He said that from generalized input, a very specific plan was proposed that most of the residents opposed, so
8103
Pelican Bay Serviee. Division SunnMry Meeting Minntes
July 13, 2009
16 I 1 1A 18
it was important to take steps to get the community behind each phase of each project, specifically the ways the
projects are proposed to be implemented_
Mr_ laizzo added that whether fmancial responsibility is the Services Division or the Foundation, the
money is coming from the same pot, so the dollar figure also needs resident approvaL
Members of the Strategic Planning Committee defended their positioo that at every step during the process
that they would obtain community input
Mr_ Dallas pointed out that feedback from the community is necessary and in order to determine the
implementation of a recommendation that enough detailed infoTDlation was necessary to provide to the residents.
Mr_ Iaizzo stressed again the imp<xmnee of feedback from the connnunity and his objection to going
forward without it.
Mr_ Gravenhorst questioned Mr_ Mangan's background in safety and security_
Mr. Mangan responded that be bas certified staff that use Ieclmology to determine safety and security
issues.
Mr_ Moffatt said that the survey results are old and that it was taken at a time when the economy was good_
Times bave changed and the data is staIe_
Ms_ Noreen Murray stated that the survey asked what are you satisfied and dissatisfied with in Pelican Bay,
not what do you want us to spend money on and there is enonnous support with the items identified on the "Scope
of Services."
Mr. Moffatt commented that there is a difference between "need" and "nice to have_"
Ms_ Murray responded that what most people wanted were things the community already bas and that there
was no overwhehning support for new fucilities.
Mr_ Moffatt asked if Wiloon Miller had actually been m-I and the cost.
Mr_ Lickbalter explained that the Strategic Planning Committee is going through the process set forth by
Florida Law and County's procurement process to choose the fum_ The next step prior to signing a contract is to
define a "Scope of Services." The process cannot go forward without a fixed "Scope of Services_"
Mr_ Gravenhorst said that the study should be prioritized by "ueeds" and ''nice to have_"
8104
Peliean Bay Service. Division Summary Medinll Minutes
July 13,2009
16'1 A18
Mr. Mangan explained that by narrowing down the broader "Scope of Services" into smaller, more
manageable goals that the priorities would aU full into place. Mr. Moffutt said that after those smaller goals are
identified, then they should be laken ro the communiI)' fo< input.
Mr. Dallas said tbat they should be laken to the colDlDllllily dw1ng the process, before they are fmalized.
Ms. Bellone said that until goals are identified, there is nothing to show to the community. Other ideas may
come forward or drop ont dw1ng Wilson Miller's consultation of design and development.
Mr. Moffatt asked about cost and that if the ideas are not good, they could be dropped, i.e., eleven items
now, drop to seven, and in turn, the cost would drop. He pointed out that the Services Division did not have the level
of involvement that Ms. Bellone implied Involvement was zero at the joint meeting and the Services Division was
not invited to participate at the subsequent interview meetings.
Ms. Bellone apologized.
Chairwoman Womble said the Board was invited and it was in the minutes.
Mr. Cravens countered with in o<der fo< the Board ro be there, the meeting bad ro be publically advertised
and it was not.
Mr. Lickhalter responded to Mr. Moffatt's suggestion to drop services to save dollars. At some point that
may be valid hot all services mnst be addressed now.
Mr. Dallas said that the Services Division does not really have a huge role or responsibility on a lot of the
identified "Scope of Services" and nothing sItouId be eliminated regardless. He used the example of the berm on
D. S. 41 and not the Services Division's responsibility.
Mr. Hoppensteadt said that the Foundation owns the land, but the Servioos Division is responsible for the
maintenance.
Mr. Lickbalter said that a global plan be devised with as many services as possible and nothing cut out
unless determined it is not going to work.
Mr. Dorrill reaffirmed that the Services Division has a Vel}' narrow role in the implemen1ation of the
Strategic Plan and the Foundation has a major role and will identilY, defme, protect and promote the Pelican Bay
brand in all aspects and decisions. The Services Division role is really only to lIIlIinmin streets, storm drainage, and
streetscape and other public aspects of the community. He recommended that the CbaiIwoman make a motion for
the Administrator to explore possibilities for a \egaUy suffICient inter-local agreement between the Services Division
8105
16/1A18
Pelican Bay Services Division SuIllDllllY Meeting MinDles
July 13, 2009
and the FOlUldation. This inter-local agreement will defme the Service Division's and the Foundation's roles,
requirements, and responsibilities, including financial. The inter-local agreement would define public elements of
the "Scope of Services," therefore narrowing down what the Services Division can pay for legally, which is only the
public elements. This will be proactive and circumvent any potential internal struggles down the road with the
County.
Mr. Mangan stated that it was his job to methodically evaluate the "Scope of Services" document using an
integrated approach as to how they fit imo the ""UWlwllty, and exlJact the eleven items into specific implementable
issues. They would then provide their professional opinion and make recommendations. The community via the
Committee and Board would prioritize the goals, but first the goals need to be identified and that is why he was
hired. Then they wonld evaluate a second "Scope of Services" and charge a fee specific only to that.
Mr. Moffatt asked Mr. Dorrin if the Services Division Board would be able to "sign off on each Scope of
Service at each step along the way.
Mr. Dorrill said that terms would have to be specifICally defmed in the inter-local agreement so that you are
satisfied that your money is being spent only on the public aspects in the order that you decide they should be spent.
The Services Division Board will decide, approve and prioritize those elements of our role in the community and in
return, we will pay our cost share with the FoundatiolL
Mr. Levy said there was never any discussion on allocation or cost sbaring of the initial study and from
what he understands this is tbe FOlmdation's Strategic Plan and we are being brought on board because there are
areas where the Services Division largely implements. However, the study is being done by the Foundation.
Mr. Dorrill said that m.m what he understood, the Services Division would cost share with the Foundation
appreciable assets that we own and operate; items of a public element only. The Foundation has to use their non-
profit funds only on property that they own and County can only use their funds for the public, County-owned
elements.
Mr. Levy responded thaI he did not recall discussing thaI and flfS/ he has heard of it. He asked what
consideration was given to the Budget to this fiscal year or next
Chairwoman Womble confirmed and explained thaI due to Mr. Dorrill just coming on hoard July I ber
desire to get him acquainted with Mr. Hoppenstea<h to decide bow to go fOfWllld legally and with an understanding
of the appropriate use of the funds, as well as where the money comes from and who pays for what. That is the next
8106
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting MiIloteo
July 13,2009
16 1'1 A 18
step in process and must be done as sooo and as possible. Mr. DorrilI and Mr. Hoppensteadt will bring what they
decide back to this Board for approval of the inter-local agreement.
Mr. Moffatt said that from what he unde<stood, the monies would come from the capital funds.
Mr. Dorrill agreed and added that an appropriate budget amendment would have to be done the frrst month
of the fiscal year (October.)
Mr. Dorrill elaborated on his earlier recommended motion to instruct the Administrator to affirm the legal
sufficiency of the desired approach and to bring a phased inter-local agreement back to this Board no later than the
September meeting.
Mr. Moffatt made the motion with discussion.
Mr. Cravens asked Mr. Dorrill what be meant by "bring that back to this Board" ifhe meant for this
Board's approval.
Mr. Dorrill responded that yes, the inter-local agreement would be brought back to this Board for approval
or for the Board's decision as they see fit. Should this Board choose to not do this in a cooperative manner, retain
your own consultants, and do your own project that would be a Board decision and could not be delegated to the
Administrator.
Mr. Cravens seconded the motion.
Mr. Gravenhorst said that the "Scope of Services" needs to be identifred and be portioned as to which
services are the responsihilities of the Services Division and which ones are the responsibilities of the Foundation.
Chairwoman Womble confumed responsibilities will be spelled out in the inter-local agreement.
Mr. Moffatt added that how each phase of the deliverables or "Scope of Services" affects everything,
emphasizing that it was not only the eleven items identified, but also the multiple nmnber of stages.
There was no further discussion and the Board voted unanimously 00 the motion.
Mr. Moffllll _de II modtm fDr Mr. Dvrri1lto dmft IIIqIl/q RfjJidmI ilrtn--1oaU "If'UmeItt
between the Peliam Bay Senka Divisimt.. the PeBe.. Bay F....-+w.m tlud:rpedjiClllly defines
the roles, relJuiremen/s, mr4 ~ of _dr enIitJt to the S~ Pfmr "Scope ofSen>ices"
""d to bring IHu:k II drIIft "8' ._4 ,. tile a-n fDr "PP"""" /It the September meeting. Mr.
Cravens s<<vtuIeJl tIte ___ Tlte a-n __ """. the motion.
Chairwoman Womble asked Mr. DorriU and Mr. Hoppensteadt to meet and come up with an inter-local
agreement as stated in the motion to bring back to the Board as soon as possible.
8107
p,,;;;.~ !'.107 ""'''~ :!"'~ ",~-:I ,,~"'~.v='" hi' l"j,c p",': .", !1--;.-,' S"",,,,,!o",, [,i;;o',;" .~<d-,-i,.",., ",,~"d ~,!1 9/14l;:>,,; ""''''',,,[1 9:'1,ciG9 ,. LP
Pelican Bay Services DIvision Summary Meeting Minute.
July 13, 2009
16J1A18
Mr. Gibson complimented Mr. DorriIl on hi. work so far and said that it has been a smooth transition He
also complimented Ms. Bellone and Mr. Lickhalter for the presentation by a wonderful architectural rum and their
effort for community involvement and input.
Chairwoman Womble asked Mr. DorriJI if the Board could give assistance to the Strategic Planning
Committee and Fmmdation as to what the Services Division's financial and other responsibilities are to the "Scope
of Services" vs. the F oWldation
Mr. Dorrill responded that he would prefur to get it on paper in the fonn of an inter-local agreement that
clearly dermes the roles as to what are the funding soun:es, allocation, and other responsibilities of the Services
Division.
Chairwoman Womble agreed, but asked if it could he done before the September meeting, at some time
during late Angus!.. so it would be in process.
Mr. Dorril! responded due to ""heduling coullicts and County Budget Hearings, he preferred not to make a
commitment for completion by late August and that SepIemher is probably more realistic timeframe.
Mr. Dallas said that be assumed that an inter-local agreement will define responsibilities and who is
responsible for them.
Mr. Dorrill said that was his primary reason for suggesting it, to give Ibe Board complete peace of mind or
tel! you what your alternatives are to go forward.
Chairwoman Womble said something would bave to he devised using the current "Scope of Services."
Mr. Dorrill affmned.
Mr. Levy questioned which "Scope of Services" docmnent would be used.
Mr. Lickhalter confmned that the revised version with the Services Division's input would be used.
Chairwoman Womble thanked the presenters for coming.
APPROVAL OF APRIL 27. 2009 BUDGI:T COMMl1'TI:E MEETING MINUTES
Mr. Levy made a motion to approve the minutes with ameo.huouts.
Mr. Cravens seconded the motion with di""ussion.
Mr. Moffatt bad several cbanges. On page 1023, Mr. Lukasz speaking , the nmnber" 6()" should be
"$60,000." On page 1021 three quarters of the way down, Mr. Moffatt speaking should read, "n. move money from
8108
Peliean Bay Servic:es Division Summary Meeting Minutes
July 13, 2009
16 I'll A 18
fund to fund" Page 1 035 middle of page, change the word ''float'' to "fix." Mr. Moffatt commented that on page
1054 that Mr. Levy mentioned the DVD, "The Jewel of Pelican Bay" and Mr. Moffatt requested a copy of it.
CbaiIwoman Womble requested that staff provide.
Mr. Levy had sevmll corrections. On page 1047 in the middJe of the page, Mr. Levy speaking, "$4.5
million" should be "$2.5 million." Page 1047 Mr. Petty speaking it reads "2 months" but should read "2.5 months."
Also page 1047, near the bottom, Mr. Lukasz speaking should read" SI66,OOO" not" $550,000."
There was no further discussion.
Mr. Levy made a motion to 1IJ1P""'" tile April 17, 1fJIJ'J llIIdget (L_. 'gee Meeting
Minutes willi amentbnenl& Mr. c.....-s .... ..... tire motion willi dhcussitm. A vote
was taken and tile Bo.n/_i1noIaIy IIJIpnrved tile April 17, 1(f(J9 llIIdget Committee
medine minutes as lWItl.
APPROVAL OF MAY 11.2009 BUDGET COMMl1TEEMEETlNG MINUTES
Mr. Moffatt and Mr. Levy, Co-Chairs of the Budget Committee discussed who chaired the meeting and
they both recalled that it was Mr. Levy. TIre minutes were amended 10 reflect Mr. Levy as Chainnan.
Mr. Moffatt had several corrections. On page 1068, Mr. Moffatt speaking, "Leo" should read "Leo Ocbs."
and "Carnell" should read "Steve Carnell." On page 1071, Mr. Lukasz speaking, should read, "it is the actual RFP"
period, end of sentence and then next sentence should read, "The contract expired ..." On page 1074, Mr. Moffatt
speaking, should read, "That is why." Further, down the page, Ms. Cmvens speaking, "That has the question.
should read, "That is the question..."
Mr. Levy amended page 1057, Mr. Levy speaking, should read, "... where we are not... " On page 1 073,
Chainnan Moffatt speaking, repla<:e "in" with "BOd." It should read, "... and the equipment reserves."
There was no fmther discussion.
Mr. Levy and Mr. Moffatt mtItIe a motion to "J'PFf1Ve tile Mq lI. 1fJIJ'J llIIdget Committee meeting
minutes as amended. Mr. n.JIIIs ...,.." t {tire motion. A _...... filter. tmd tire Board
untmimollS 'lWetl the M 11, 2111J9 C~.._. ..~ milt rte., lIS IIIIIt!IIdeJ.
APPROVAL OF MAY 15.2009 SAFETY COMMl1TEE MEETING MINUTES
Mr. Cravens made a motion to lIJlPfove the minutes and it was seconded by Mr. Grnvenhorst with
discussion and amendments.
Mr. Grnvenhorst amended page fIVe, middle of the page, Mr. Grnvenhorst speaking should read, "if the
trees are uncut and not well kepL" changing '1rempt" to "kept."
8109
PeHcsn Bay Serviees Division Summary Meeting Mhwtes
July 13, ZOO9
16"1 A18
Mr. Gibson commented that although be did not atteoo!be Safety Committee meeting of 5115/09, he
thought that it was a great meeting. a lot was covered and that he m90yed reading !be minutes.
Mr. Craven. made a motiDn to appnwe lite Mq IS, ZIHIJ Safety CNrrmitt<< meeting milfllles. Mr.
Gravenhorst .econded lite mati"" wiIIr distwBioJr _4 arnerulments. A _.... taken and the Board
unanimous tnetl tile H IS 2"", C~._. "11" n " JJW widt 1I1ItI!IUImeIrD.
Mr. Dorrill stated his observation that !be Board spent approximately 45 minutes debating meeting
transcripts. He further explained thai b8sed _ bis 30 YeaIS of experience, \be Services Division is his only client that
utilizes verbatim transcripts. In additioo, printing copies for each Boord member resulted in using approximately
1,500 sheets of paper. He requested an opportunity to promote other formats because the audio is always available
as backup. He estimated a rew thousand dollars moolhly doing verbotim minutes and that it was very time
consuming and swnmary minutes would be a better utilization of!be Board's money.
Chairwoman Womble suggested that \be minutes be prepared in a formal other than verbatim sty Ie for this
meeting. She asked Ms. Lisa Resnick how she acco~lished preparing minutes.
Ms. Resnick responded that sbe took notes during the meeting. then listened 10 the recording and typed
verbatim minu1es, but summary minutes via !be same mechanism is doable.
Mr. Dorrill said that Ms. Resnick can provide a complete set of minutes, highlighting the motions,
directions, and follow-up. The Boord can review !be new summary format and decide how to proceed. He offered
that if the Board did not like !be new style then staff is happy to go bock to verbatim style, but that it is an expensive
way to go.
Chairwoman Womble agreed and added that verbatim style minutes are very time consuming. She asked
the Board if there was any discussion, or should she just direct Mr. Dorrillto proceed as suggested with summary
style minutes.
Mr. Cravens suggested doing it both ways and decide from there.
Mr. Moffatt explaired that he had \be April 16, 2009 Clam Bay Advisory Committee meeting minu1es and
they are not verbatim, very readable, information is highlighted, speakers are listed, and that they are in a much
more readable format.
Mr. Dorrill stated that one of the reasons for dGing this was 10 be able to provide more meaningful fmancial
statements and infonnatioo. Rather than correct gmmmar, he would prefer that \be Board discuss valid sheet items,
or statements of revenue and expenses.
8110
1611 A18
Pelkan Bay Services OMsion Summary Meetinll MInutes
July 13, 2009
Chairwoman Womble directed staff to give summary minutes a try and the Board would review at the next
meeting.
COMMfITEE REPORTS AND f OR REOUESfS
BUDGET COMMITfEE
Mr. Moffatt stated that he had a discussion with Mr. Donill and that a new fmaneial report fonnat needed
to be created in order to provide infOl1lllltion that is more meaningful.
Mr. Levy agreed and added that the Board ofCOWlIy Commissioners Budget Hearing for Pelican Bay
Services Division's reviewoffisoal year 2010 budget is on September 10,2009 at 5:05 p.m.
Mr. Dorrill said that at the end of the meeting he will dimt"bule a more meaningful financial report that
contains revenue, expenses, profit-loss statement. He added he received the information today at lunchtime and that
it is not quite a consolidated balance sheet as he would like, but more meaningful and working on improving it.
There was no fwther discussion.
SAFETY COMMITTEE
Mr. Gravenhorst bad identified at the June 13. 2009 meeting, the light pole extensions that needed to be
moved and he and Kyle took a tour of those areas and requested an update.
Mr. Lukasz responded that a purebase order was opened with coDlIaclor to move the light pole extensions
at the locations where they inter.Iect Pelican Bay Boulevard on Crnlyon Road, Hammock Oak Drive, North Pointe
Drive and Oakmont Parkway. They pI;m to shift the p<>1es up to the bull noses to a position that will illuminate
crosswalks. The cost is approximately $2,000 per p<>1e for time, material and labor.
Mr. Moffatt asked for an update on repainting the crosswalks and turn lanes.
Mr. Lukasz said that the TJllII$pu,tation DeplUhucut CODlntctor is scbeduled to restripe the crosswalks and
intersections including the one on at the Pavilion. They will repaint the stop bars and turn lane arrows. The
thermoplastic material they are using is twiee as visible at night and three times more durable than paint.
Mr. Gravenhorst said that the issues the Safety Committee identified sbould become part of the Strategic
Plan and provided to the landscape architects.
Mr. Cravens commented that it is a serious problem oot to fix the crosswalk at Station 8 on Pelican Bay
Boulevard because cars do not stop fur people in the crosswalk He suggested that a solution is to put in solar
powered flashing like at Mym Janco Daniels Boulevard
8111
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
July 13, 2009
16flA18
Mr. Lukasz estimated the cost to be S30,000 - $40,000.
Mr. Cravens Slated that work on such safety items should not wait to go through the Strategic Planning
process. He emphasized the need to fix as soon as possible as it is accident waiting to happen.
Chairwoman Womble requested Mr. Lukasz to research the possibility of a solar powered flashing
crosswalk and bring it hack to the Board at the next meeting.
Mr. Cravens said it looked like work was ready to commence, but did not happen for 4-5 months later.
Mr. Lukasz responded that there was a delay with the permit for the lights to he embedded in the roadway,
as well as a delay in getting additional marenals.
Mr. Moffatt asked how long it takes to get a permit.
Mr. Lukas estimated 45 days.
Mr. Moffatt made a motion to put in solar powered motion lights in the crosswalk
Mr. Dallas inunediately expressed his disagreement of the motion and he stated, "I disapprove on principal
because at every meeting we make decisiom; without having any clue as. to what we are doing."
Mr. laizzo suggested placing signs in the middle of the road to identify the crosswalk that read, "Pedestrian
Walkway."
Mr. Levy disagreed and said that intersection was clearly marIred and had no problem with it and that there
were plenty of signs.
Mr. Gibson added he walks there a lot and people stand there waiting to cross and that it was a bad
situation because of speeding cars.
Mr. Cravens reiterated that it is a critical safety and security issue and that even the security people are
afraid that eventually someone will be hit.
Mr. Gravenhorst added that a high volmne of people use that crosswalk, and he witnessed a groups of 4 or
6 walk across after sunset and driven; canoot see them in the crosswalk and do _ slow down.
Chairwoman Womble said that there may be better interim solutions and asked Mr. Lukasz to research
possibilities.
Mr. Dorrill said that the Board will need an official plan and permit in compliance with the Uniformed
Traffic Standards and that the issue could be looked into to obmin a proposal and cost to limit liability.
Mr. Gibson suggested piano key >1lriping.
8112
16l1A18
Peli<:an Bay Serviee. Division Summary Meeting Minnles
July 13, 2009
Mr. Dorrill slated his aim was to make this happen before next meeting using 8 tbetmal plastic product
because of the high volume of traffic.
Chairwoman Womble said Dr. Baker's leIler regarding the divided medians at Gulf Park Drive and Pelican
Bay Boulevard and that sbe responded to 0.-. Baker with the plan to fIX with a sign even though he was asking for a
light to illwninate the median area.
Mr. Lukasz said that divided median signs were ordered and scheduled for installation during the third
week of July.
Mr. Gibson said that there is not a crosswalk there.
Mr. Levy said there are stop signs.
Mr. Lukasz said that they cannot just paint stripes because they have to do median modifications that are
ADA compliant and a major renovation
Mr. Cravens brought up that people nm stop signs all the time and Cmmine (pelican Bay's communily
Depuly from the Collier County Sheriff's Office) hasn't yet been issuing tickets, but discussed it at the last "Men's
Coffee."
Mr. Moffatt withdrew his motion.
Mr. Cravens withdrew his second.
There was no further discussion.
Chairwoman Womble said there may be better interim solutiorul and asked Mr. Dorrill and Mr. Lukasz to
research possible security and safety issue interim solutions, sucb as signage. Sbe suggested they consult with Mr.
Hoppenstead! and Wilson Miller and bring that information back 10 the Board at the next meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
MANGROVE OVl:RGROWI'H ON WEST SIDE OF BERM
Mr. Cravens said that be was ~ about plant growth on the _st side of the benn and that if you
walk the benn there bas been 8 considerable ammmt of growth, mainly trees on west side. Mr. Cravens and Mr. Tim
Hall walked the area and Mr. Hall confmned that it is hindering wa1er management system
Mr. Hall said that he would cheek with South Florida Water Management District if the permit allows
removal of excessive plant growth. Mr. Hall added that it is possible but not practical and costly to move the
mangroves and that there is no place that they are necessary. Mr. Hall talked 10 South Florida Water Management,
8113
Pelican Bay Services Division SIIDUIIIU')' Meeting Minutes
July 13,2009
1611A18
Department of Environmental Pro1ection and the Anny Corp. of Engineers and the work is part of the maintenance
of the water management system. Establisbed contact is Steve Nagle and work can start as soon as possible.
Regarding Mrs. Potter's mangrove die-off area, Mr. Hall said that there is standing water there but most is
caused by the hwricane of several years ago and that sometimes it takes five to seven years to see effects of
hurricane and they will be monitoring the die off area.
VIDEOTAPING MEETINGS
Mr. Cravens bad another items under new business and his idea was to start videotaping the meetings. He
said that Ms. Resnick has experience with videotaping and he spoke with Mr. Hoppensteadt if the Services Division
conld show the video on Channel 95. He said that Mr. Hoppensteadt thought that was a great idea. Mr. Cravens
added that it wonld give the Board more exposure.
Chairwoman Womble requested this subject be brought up again on next agenda so that the Board can
reflect.
Mr. Cravens said there was no cost involved.
WEBSITE CONCERNS
Mr. Cravens raised the issue that the website was out of date and information incorrect - term limits,
minutes, etc. Mr. Dorrill showed the Board wondetfuJ websites and suggested that Mr. Dorrill conld do great things
with the website.
Chairwoman Womble requested that Mr. DorriIl bring website alternatives to the Board at the next
meeting.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mr. Gibson suggested to Mr. Lukasz that tree trinuning is a good idea now in case ofhwricanes/storms. He
also asked about the status of the project to use onr own mulch.
Mr. Lukasz said they are waiting to hear if that item becomes part of strategic plan
Mr. Gibson also mentioned his interest in water management and the ability of the community to store
water.
Mrs. Marcia Cravens conunented on Mr. Dorrill's comment that the Services Division has a very limited
role in the "Scope of Services." She said that she disagreed and that the Services Division's ordinance covers most
of what is part of the Strategic Plan.
8114
16jl~18
Pdk~U1 JS<-~Y SCi->::.h.:r.." Oh:~kti Boaj'o l\'leetiug ~umman'
-Ilj)',: Ul 1:0m~
Milwh....,
~".__.-...~~._,,~_..~--,.....~~~._-
;-'11::- 1~.:H\'-'(~iL HUt":'..! HEll 111<:'1: n~~.:h '.U be a plm tt' ~!i.iJr";::b Ug'::i'H.lfJ is:mes dl1(J Jullo'.,.",up:-- at thf" "~I'Y;f'qtJCW
1TI(>~~Wlg~, mr:hldrng addrelising the fund... for Clam Bay and the C()lloty'~ decisions of how m use Ill( funds
,\U.'OUtNi\U:N J
-I mo';o" '0 ,uljoUN/ was IlUJde It V Mr. Hansen. Mr. Moffatt .e"uIUJe,1 tI,e IlWnoll and tile Board
ulUmimouslv eleaed te tulioUN/.
fhe' moeting .djoumeJ al approximalely J p.m
,
;..t-' 'l'/",
Chair-w" an Mary A:Jme Womhle
5ummo(~ !fJ;'WreSOFe~(ed ond revISed In flfnernJed br ba ReMiCk. Admlni$l'fattlle AsusttUrt. Pe/lt:Orl BoY.)(>fvices DUlls/Of! on AtJ9'I~t la, l(J0')
8115
161~1 tJ\ 18
.
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION ADVISORY BOARD
AUGUST 5, 2009
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that lhe Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board, in and for lhe County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on Wednemay, August 5, 2009 at 1:00 PM in Regular Session at
lhe Hammock Oak Community Center, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108, wilh lhe following
members present:
Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Members Present
Mary Anne Womble, Chairwoman Michael Levy
Tom Cravens Gerald Moffatt
Keith Dallas Geoffrey Gibson (excused absence)
Ted Gravenhorst Theodore Raia (excused absence)
John laizzo Hunter Hansen (absent)
Pelican Bay Services Division StaIJ Present:
Neil Dorril!, Administrator
Kyle Lukasz, Field Operations Manager
Mary McCaughtIy, Recording Secretary
Lisa Resnick, Administrative Assistant
AGENDA
I. RollCall
2. Approval of July 13, 2009 Pelican Bay Services Division Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
3. Administrator's Report
a) Discussion of Strategic Planning Committee's Scope of Services Inter-local Agreement between lhe
Services Division and Foundation
b) Discussion of Staff Annual Work Plan, Board Requests and Expectations
c) Discussion of Plans for Website
d) Discussion of Preference for Verbatim or Condensed Meeting Minutes
4. Chairwoman's Report
a) Commercial Interests Advisory Board Applicant Review application and make recommendation.
b) Discussion of need to reestablish meetings of 1he Oam Bay Committee
c) Discussion of Web Services Invoice
5. Capital Projects
a) Discussion and Update of lhe North Tram Station #8 Pedestrian Walkway
6. Community Issnes
a) Update on west side ofberm mangrove die-off area, water management system and monitoring report
7. Committee Reports andlor Requests
8. Old Business
a) Discuss video recording of Board meetings & negotiate wilh Foundation to televise on Channel 95
9. New Business
10. Audience Comments
11. Adjournment
ROLL CALL
Madam Chair Womble called lhe meeting to order at 1:05 PM. She asked Ms. McCaughtIy to take Roll.
Ms. McCaughtIy responded, "Madam Chair, let lhe record reflect that we do have three members absent,
Dr. Raia, Mr. Gibson, and Mr. Hansen, bnt we do have a quorum, so we are ready to go."
8116
161a IA18
.
Pelican Bay Services Division Snmmary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
APPROVAL OF TIlE JULY 13.2009 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
Chairwoman Womble moved on to the next item that was approvaI of the July 13,2009 Pelican Bay
Services Division Meeting Minutes.
Mr. Cravens made a motion to approve the July 13, 2009 Pelican Bay Services Division meeting minutes.
Mr. Levy seconded the motion.
Chairwoman Womble asked if there was any discussion and she had several changes.
Mr. Cravens said that it was a rarity if Mr. Levy had no corrections to the minutes.
Mr. Levy stated that they were s\lllllll3IY minutes and not veIbatim and for the most part satisfactory.
Chairwoman Womble confirmed that summary minutes were provided and moved along to reading her
corrections. On page 8100, the same phrase twice, "$111,000 less than it was when it left the Budget Committeen
and one should be stricken.
Mr. Levy thanked Chairwoman Womble for this correction.
Chairwoman Womble continued to read her corrections. Page 8106, "Chairwoman Womble confirmed and
explained that due to Mr. Dorri1I just coming on board July 1 and her desire to get him acquainted with... n The and
should be stricken to read, "Chairwoman Womble confirmed and explained that due to Mr. Dorrilljust coming on
board July I her desire to get him acquainted with...n
Chairwoman Womble continued with amending the minutes. Page 8107, there was a motion made by Mr.
Moffatt and Mr. Cravens seconded. She said, however that the motion was unclear and needs clarification for the
record.
Mr. Moffatt stated that the motion was Mr. Dorrill's recommendation that the Services Division enter into
an inter-local agreement with the Foundation. Mr. Moffatt continued and said that after Mr. Dorri1l's explanation of
the process, Mr. Moffat said, "I'll make that amotion. n
Chairwoman Womble said that the motion and vote needed to be "highlightedn and "boxed in" at the end
of the section. She stated, "A motion was made by Mr. Moffatt, seconded by Mr. Cravens and carried unanimonsly
by the Board.n The next correction on page 8108 should read, "Mr. Gibson complimented Mr. DorrilI... He also
complimented Ms. Bellone and Mr. Lickhalter for the presentation by a wonderful architectma1 firm,n and to strike
"for hiring the flnn,n because the firm had not yet been hired.
8117
Pelican Bay Senices Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
.
161~.l
A18
Mr. Cravens stated his concern about the motion to approve the inter-local agreement and stressed the need
for a notation in the minutes, just like anywhere else in the minutes where Board action is taken.
Chairwoman Womble agreed and asked Ms. Resnick if she could go hack to the records and get the
verbatim discussion and motion.
Ms. Resnick confirmed.
Chairwoman Womble asked Mr. Cravens ifhe would like to follow up at the next meeting to the correction
in the minutes of the motion as it was stated.
Mr. Cravens answered yes, bnt that it was his concern that the minutes may not reflect what actually
transpired.
Chairwoman Womble asked Ms. Resnick to bring to the uext meeting, the ameuded section of the minutes
tllat clarifies the motion to approve an inter-local agreemeut between the Services Division and the Foundation,
verbatim, as stated in the recording.
Ms. Resnick agreed to comply.
Chairwoman Womble asked if there was any further discussion.
Mr. Gravenhorst asked what would he reflected in the box that the Board passed and approved.
Chairwoman Womble said that the box would reflect what is staled as the actua1 motion.
Mr. Gravenhorst replied that Mr. Dorri\l was to bring back an inter-local agreemeut for Board approval.
The motion was for Mr. Dorri\l to enter into discussions with Mr. Hoppensteadt reg;uding an inter-local agreement
and bring it hack to the Board for approval.
Chairwoman Womble agreed, but said that for the record, the motion needs to he stated correctly in the
minutes.
Mr. Gravenhorst expressed his approval of that process.
Mr. Iaizzo pointed out that the agreement between the Fmmdation and Mr. Dorri\l is based on the
presentation of the "Scope of Services" that showed what was under the purview ofthe Foundation and what was
under the purview of the Services Division.
Chairwoman Womble responded that was why she wanted to bring back to the next meeting the amended
minutes, clarifying and highlighting the motion and Board action taken, so that the Board can read how it was
actually stated and be more comfortable with the record.
8118
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minntes
August 5, 2009
16 I r1
A18
Mr. Iaizzo said that Mr. Dorrill is probably ready to give the Board that infonnation.
Mr. Cravens asked if approval of the minutes be deferred until amended to show an actual reflection of
what took place because it was going to be revisited at the next meeting
Chairwoman Womble answered one way could be to defer, but the Board could also approve the minutes
as amended with the exception of that one section and bring that one section back to the next meeting for approval.
She said that the decision was up to the Board.
Mr. Iaizzo said the latter was the way he understood the current discussion.
Mr. Crnvens stated his concern of approving minutes that do not accurately reflect what took place and that
as the minutes stand, they do not portray an accurate motiolL
Mr. Levy asked if the minutes could be approved as amended.
Mr. Crnvens said for clarification pmposes that a motion should be made to amend the July 13 minutes to
be reflected in the AUgust 5 minutes, rnther than just comment about them.
Chairwoman Womble agreed and did not want to approve this particular section without specificities.
Mr. Grnvenhorst countered that if this information was in a box that there was a motion and the Board
voted unanimously, then the minutes are accurate, but they are not presented accurately without the box.
Chairwoman Womble retorted that the minutes do not state what the motion is.
Mr. Crnvens agreed and said, "The motion that Jerry made is not there."
Chairwoman Womble continued that it does not say who made the motion; just "he made the motiolL"
Mr. Grnvenhorst said yes, that does need to be delineated, but it directly refers to what Mr. Dorrill
elabornted.
Chairwoman Womble agreed and added that they are just looking for the actuality.
Mr. Gravenhorst said that if the sentence read that Mr. Moffatt made the motion, the rest of it is correct.
Mr. Levy pointed out that the paragraph preceding is really the motion and read, "Mr. Dorrill elaborated on
his earlier recommended motion to instruct the Administrator to affinn the legal sufficiency of the desired approach
and to bring a phased inter-local agreement back to this Board no later than the September meeting." Mr. Levy
continued reading, "Mr. Moffatt made the motion." Mr. Levy slated, "That was the motion."
Mr. Moffatt responded, "Basically that is the motion."
8119
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
16 I ,~ i-\
J.'" 8'
,.
Chairwoman Womble stated, "Basically it is, but I tbiuk that we need to have it specified correctly and then
we can go ahead and approve the minutes. It is a motion by the Board, so it is important that it be represented
properly." Chairwoman Womble queried the Board as to whether they wanted to approve the minutes minus the
"inter-local agreement section," or how does the Board want to handle.
Mr. Iaizw, Chairwoman Womble, and Mr. Gmvenhorst agreed that they wanted to move ahead and
approve the minntes
Mr. Gmvenhorst stated further that the minutes should be approved with an amendment, added to the
August 5 minutes and if necessary, reapprove them next time.
Mr. Dorrill agreed and said, "That's typically what you would do. You would entertain the motion to
approve as amended and if you would like for us to share with you electronically the final version of these minutes
along with the other minor changes and if you feel that they still do not reflect what what said and from a fonnatting
perspective, then you can further amend and clarifY those minutes at your next meeting. I tbiuk that based on the
consensus of the direction with respect to the inter-local agreement, we can refonnat that and bold that area to reflect
whatever paragmphs are above that will clarifY it."
Chairwoman Womble agreed and stated that was more to the point and asked Ms. Resnick to forwardjnst
that section, the motion as it was stated and not to send the minutes in its entirety.
Mr. Moffatt had a correction. He said that the boxes at the bottom of pages 8108 and 8110 were not
motions and therefore should not be "boxed." On 8112, it reads that Mr. Dallas "denied" the motion. It should read
that he "disagreed."
There was no further discussion and a vote was taken on the motion as corrected and amended as slated.
Mr, Cravens made a motion to approve tile Jaly 13, 2009 PeIictm Boy Services Division
Advisory Board SamnrtU'J' Meeting Minlltes. Mr. Levy seemuIe4 tile motion witJJ discassion.
A vote was taken and tile Jaly 13, 2009 Pelksn Boy Services Division Advisory Board
Meeting M"mutes were ananimo ved as correded and amended.
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
DISCUSSION OF STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMI1TEE'S SCOPE OF SERVICES INTER..
LOCAL AGREEMENT BElWEEN SERVICES DIVISION AND FOUNDATION .
Mr. Donill started the Adminislrator's report with discnssioo of tile inter-local agreement. He stated that
the process had been started and was on track. He said that be had a series of communications with the
Foundation's attorney, Mr. Brnce Auderson to identify points of the agreement that would meet Mr. Dorrill's test for
8120
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
16flA18
declaring the Foundation a "sole-source provider of Master Planning to this community." This will avoid having to
otherwise go through a lengthy process to advertise and short list any land planning or landscape architectural
surveying firms that would be working on those elements of this community that are specifically the Services
Division's responsibility. From the presenlation last month, while any and all of the community's comprehensive
Master Planning is good, the Services Division's role and responsibility is filirly limited to those elements that are
public and within the public right of ways, or easements in the County's favor. Specifically these areas are
streetscape, landscape medians, entry landscape or bardscape features, street lighting, storm water management and
the facilities associated with that. On a preliminary hasis, Mr. Bruce Anderson, the Foundation's attorney who is
developing the inter-local agreement, it does appear that the Services Division can meet all of the County's
requirements and recognize the fact that the Foundation does have a special and complete interest in a
comprehensive master plan. The Services Division's responsibility will be to review the finaI "Scope of Services"
for Wilson Miller, those items that the Services Division will then pay for all included elements unless there is a
specific finding of public benefit. A few examples of what would be under the purview of the Foundation are a
common teunis complex, any and all community facilities like the Hammock Oak Center, food and beverage
facilities on the beach end, and technology enhancemenffi Those are clearly going to be the responsibility of the
Foundation, as well as consultants engaged to explore future enhancements of the Master Plan, or financing plans
associated with those projects. The creation of an inter-local agreement is on track for the Services Division Board
to review and then subject to the Board's approval at the September meeting, it would be presented to the County
Commission
Mr. Levy asked if the consultants were going to have to divide their costs.
Mr. Dorrill responded that if Wilson Miller wanted to be involved in other land planning, landscape
architecture or surveying work, then the answer is "yes." For this reason, the Services Division ultimately needs to
eslablish not only a "Scope of Services" as an exhibit to an inter-local agreement, but also a fee schedule with
projected fees for the "Scope of Services." "For example, let's say that Wilson Miller, or some consultant are going
to be retained to develop new landscape or pedeslrian or boaIdwaIk plans or landscape plans or other work that the
Foundation may engage in. Those wonld need to be separately identified fees and responsibilities of the Foundation.
We are only going to pay for planning, engineering, and surveying for those assets that belong to you."
8121
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
16~lA18
Mr. Levy asked would we still have to do an inter-local agreement even if the Foundation were willing to
pick up the tab for the entire study and if that was an option.
Mr. Dorrill responded that if the Foundation were willing to pay for the entire project that the property
owners could have a reasonable argument as to whether the Foundation's money should be spent on assets that they
do not own. but are owned by a not for profit or governmental agency. That approach would depend upon the
Foundation's Articles ofIncorpomtion and Charter. It is the same argmnent. lbis seems to be the easiest and most
stIllightforward approach to our working cooperatively with the Foundation to push the entire Master Plamring
project forward.
Mr. Gmvenhorst said, "So, let me see if 1 understand what you are saying. At that point, subject to our
approval, the plan is split into two parts."
Mr. Dorrill answered, "Two parts at least as it pertains to the fees associated with and identified by the
initial consultant; the Services Division may end up paying for 80-90% of tllC fees to Wilson Miller because 80-90%
of those assets are related to roadway or landscape and assets thaI we are responsible for."
Mr. Gmvenhorst said, "1 understand that, but at that point, it is split into two parts and we are totally
responsible for our part and the Foundation is totally responsible for their part."
Mr. Dorrill coofinned. He added, "The intenl is that our contract will be with the Foundation, so a check
will be cut for whatever deliverables, and work is done, we will be paying the Foundation and in turn, it will be their
responsibility to pay Wilson Miller. In this instance, the Foundation is a sole source provider of landscape services
to the District. The Services Division will be cutting checks to the Foundation and they in turn will pay Wilson
Miller."
Mr. Gravenhorst said, "The checks that we cut to the Foundation to pay Wilson Miller will only be on
items that we approved and authorized and allowed to go forward."
Mr. Dorrill responded thaI is why an inter-local agreement will include both as an exhibit, the "Scope of
Services" and the associated fee schedules "so that you understand what you are paying for well in advance of
actually seeing it."
Mr. Levy asked if Wilson Miller would receive paymeut by the hour for time and material.
8122
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
Angust 5, 2009
1611A18
Mr. Dorrill responded that has yet to be determined and they would probably receive an estimate based on
task. Engineers as a rule are driven by tasks and work product. There will some ranges and some "not to exceeds"
within those allowable tasks.
Mr. Levy said, "Then the actual cost is going to be based on time records so to speak and we would get
those for our portion of the work."
Mr. Dorrill said yes, if the Board were interested that he believes that they would be entitled to that. Mr.
Dorrill asked Mr. Hoppensteadt if he had anything to add.
Mr. Hoppensteadt said that he did not have anything to add because Mr. Dorrill explained it all very
clearly. "At this point as you have indicated, we are looking to develop a 'sole provider of services' inter-local
agreement. We have met with Wilson Miller and they contemplate this being a three-stage process. The first stage is
exploration, community feedback, the second stage is schematic design, and third stage is design and development.
We will get as Neil has indicated, a "Scope of Services" so that everyone understands specifically what is included
in those three stages. We will get a breakdown of cost expectations. In response to Mr. Levy, Mr. Dorrill said that
he anticipates the contract to be a hybrid broken down into stages. A fixed amount could probably be assigned to
stage one because it is a defined body of work. Stage two, however, which is design and development will be much
more of a moving target that may add the components of time and materials, as well as a "not to exceed." The "not
to exceed" component is necessary because there may be something that at the front end, Wilson Miller considers,
but as the process is worked through, it may ends up being part of the design,"
Mr. Cravens said that in earlier discussions we expressed a great deal of concern that before anything was
done that we have extensive involvement and approval by the community for whatever final plans emCIge. Mr.
Cravens said that from what he understood, the architectural finn is going forward with the various stages, but
questioned what will happen when Stage one plans are set.
Chairwoman Womble responded, "I can address that, Tom. llIe SlIategic Plan., Strategic Planning
Committee and the Landscape Subcommittee are all on the same page in that at each stage, we will present it to the
community at large. Wilson Miller was chosen in one aspect because they bad some very good suggestions on how
to present this in different ways to the community, so that they would be a part of it and be very well aware of what
was going on as they went about their business and came up with their ideas. The presentltion would be to the
Foundation and Services Division Boards of course but also to the entire community."
8123
1611A18
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
Mr. Dorrill said that he wanted to point out, only by way of example that "in a troubled economy, this
Board will want to assure itself that there is a public sentiment for whatever tangible projects that are going to be
and roll out the back of this thing that you are asked upon. Years ago wheu I was in the County, we developed in
cooperation with the League of Women Voters and the Florida Institute of Government at Florida Gulf Coast
University, public opinion polling instruments." He snggested spending some money doing some sophisticated
polling of public sentiment through tolally objective third parties like the League of Women Voters or Florida Gulf
Coast University, because workshops and meetings are not as effective. He added that eventually there would be a
public outcry, so it may be beneficial to explore some ways to gauge public sentiment to ensure the community's
support and fmancial commitment
Mr. Iaizzo asked that before we get community feedback, at what point should the community be
approached and if prices and estimates shonld first be obtained from Wilson Miller.
Mr. Dorrill responded that estimates shonld be obtained from Wilson Miller and another company called
Neighborhood America. He said that Neighborhood America are experts in this. Wilson Miller bas done enough
statewide comprehensive planning for cities, counties, and developers that they can help identify specific tasks such
as how they can get initial feedback from this Board, determine projects and timeframe; this will lead to effective
opinion surveying and polling.
Mr. Iaizzo said that the Board's current responsibility based on the Sttategic Plan is that has to be approved
at some poiol by the Board, wbether whether in full or partial.
Mr. Dorrill said that plan or "Scope of Setvices" exhibit would accompany the inter-local agreement that is
developed between the Setvices Division and the Fonndation.
Mr. Iaizzo asked when.
Mr. Dorrill said that if the law linn can produoe it, then it would be at the September general meeting or no
later than the October meeting.
Mr. Cravens said his concern was, "Once we enter into the inter-local agreement that they may find
ourselves in the position where we are no longer able to control what trnnspires. TIle architecturnl linn goes back to
the Foundation, the Sttategic Planning Committee looks at this, and they are the ones who came up with the Scope
of Services. Some of the members of this Board felt some of the items were inappropriate. We really did not have
an opportunity in the early stages or in any stage to give meaningful inpnt. He said that the Setvices Division was
8124
16 rl A 18
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
sort of invited to sit in on a late stage meeting, but that was the extent that this Board had in participating in this
whole thing."
Chairwoman Womble countered that Mr. Dallas and Mr. Moffatt attended many meetings and were offered
a chance to discuss what they felt and the Committee did listen and took it back under advisement as to suggestions
that they made, comments that they made.
Mr. Cravens said that these things should come before the Board.
Mr. Moffatt suggested that after the Board sees the inter-local agreement and agree upon the Scope of
SeIVices there that he expects that this Board would have the option at the end of each phase when we get a
deliverable, to say yea or nay.
Chairwoman Womble said that was a given and understood.
Mr. Moffatt and Mr. Cravens both agreed that it should be in the agreement.
Mr. Moffatt added that it should be in the agreement, "If we opt out at the end of phase one then it is dead."
Chairwoman Womble said that she believes that was going to be in the agreement
Mr. Dorrill said it should and added that if the Board gets into this agreement and due to economic
circumstances or becomes unhappy with the process in any way, then there should be the abilily to terminate
participation within 60 days notice, which is a standard County clause. He said that he did not think that would
happen, but "If the deal blows up with ns then we should have the appropriate lennination provision. The SeIVices
Division will be obligated to pay Wilson Miller for whatever legitimate time and effort incurred up until the point of
termination and then the project will jnst unwind."
Mr. Dallas said that he did not view this as just four points along the way that input is a continual process.
He added that he believed there would be a lot of back and forth. He said that he sees the Strategic Planning
Committee being involved but also this Board will be involved at every step along the way. "When they are in
Phase one, we want to see what they are suggesting and have some input before they come up with their
recommendations at the end of phase one."
Mr. Dorrill addressed Mr. Cravens' concerns. He gave an example of exploring expanded or new bicycle
or pedestrian or jogging paths throughout the communily. He would like to think that was part of the development of
this. If this Board feels that because we do not own the expanded right of way, easements, or areas for new
sidewalks in and around throughout the communily and that's not something we want to put on the Scope of
8125
1611l/\18
Pelican Bay Services Division Snmmary Meeting Minntes
Augost 5, 2009
Services, he would like to have a "lively and spirited debate at your next meeting or whenever this is proposed. If
there are elements of the Master Plan that for whatever reason you don't feel that we should spend money on from
day I, then he would rather have that discussion earlier, or sooner than later on."
Mr. Cravens said that he was not clear on exactly what the Services Division is timding. He said that
timding the architectural plan should be a joint venture between the Foundation and the Services Division and that
the cost should be split based on property ownership, as well as typical maintenance. He said that he believes that
the Foundation should pick up the part of the timding that is part of the Foundation's property and the Services
Division should pick up the costs for the areas that they typically maintain.
Mr. Dorrill said that is his intent To further explain, he used an example that in his four weeks on the job,
from his observations listening to the Board at these meetings and other individual meetings, that there seems to be a
consensns amongst the Board that the landscape within the medians and streetscape while mature, is beginning to
look tired and dated and that certain plant underscoring species have sort of served their nsefullikeness and as they
are dying ont there a big patches and there seems to be an overall consensns that streetscape and landscape issues are
a very high priority. That would include medians and entry landscape features, so we would be responsible to pay
and make the important decisions with respect to that "For whatever reason, I've never been to the Commons and I
hope to go someday, but if there are similar issues pertaining to landscaping or new design enhancements to the
Commons or tennis complex there, we are not going to participate in those at all. If there is a Commons
architectural or Commous landscape theme, individual decisions concerning landscape enhancements or renovations
pertaining to the Commons or this facility, we are not going to participate."
Mr. Cravens agreed. His only concern is that be believes there exists a potential problem in that there are
certain elements of the community that are not really well<<fined as to who actoally should be responsible. For
example, landscaping along 41, who owns this and who is responsible, as well as the area that is landscaped along
the bem\. Ownership is also not clearly defined. Currently the Services Division is responsible for main1aining
landscaping on the berm. He questioned the validity and asked Mr. Hoppenstead! if maybe there are some areas that
should be more clearly defined as to ownership before we go into this project
Mr. Hoppensteadt said he discussed this with Mr. Dorrill. He said that there are many areas where the
Services Division and Foundation have been structured in such a way as to provide the maximwu economic benefit
for the residents of Pelican Bay. He believes they are muddy becanse wben Westinghouse started the community
8126
16'1
A18
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
and established the Special District, the Pelican Bay Independent District (PBID) they rnn it in conjunction with the
Foundation. "At that point, Westinghouse was essentially running and controlling both. When the County took over
PBID, it was not exactly a friendly takeover and so the communily bas never really sat down and said, 'Ok yon do
this and we'll do that.' Staff has always worked cooperatively and whoever had the resources to do the work has
done it. The Foundation does not maintain landscaping equipment. Kyle obviously has a staff capable of doing it,
so for big swaths of the property, the Services Division has maintained them even thongh they are Foundation
property. The berm is even more complicated because the Foundation owns the land, the utility owns the structure
on top of the land, and there is an easement for access on top of that, so it is probably the most convolmed of areas
that we have in the community and speaks to your point to do this in cooperation with the Foundation. It speaks to
Neil's desire tbatto be able to go forward to at least have a document that spells out this is what you have to do and
this is what we are going to do. We probably have a little bit of an accordion knot going back and forth to try to
figure out why and what we currently have but I do not think that will serve the best interests of the community. But
certainly going forward, we can have inter-local agreements and delineation of who's going to do what is much
more favorable."
Mr. Gravenhorst asked Mr. Dorrill if the inter-local agreement was only for check writing and billing
purposes because as he understood it, the SeIVices Division is making its own decisions for all of their items, but the
Foundation is contracting all of the seIVices and therefore the purpose of the inter-local agreement is to be able to
pay for what "we have contracted for with on bebalf of the Services Division through the Foundation."
Mr. Dorrill answered yes. "It is in essence a pass through relationship given the Foundation's unique
position here and the fact that they want to do other Master Planning initiatives and they are just trying to bring it all
into one house and to ideotify a way for us to participate and pay for and make final decisions pertaining to those
assets that you are responsible for."
Mr. Dallas said that he saw another advantage because, "We do not bave dueling consultants. It is one
consulting firm and we're all hearing the same things and hopefully we will all come to common conclusions."
Mr. Gravenborst wanted to be assured that we were not signing away any other things then the checks and
responsibility of contracting for those particular items. All the rest of the decision-making process and the work on
our projects are going to be done by us and nobody else.
Mr. Dorrill agreed.
8127
161,1
A18
Pelican Bay Senices Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
Chairwoman Womble urged Mr. Dorrill and Mr. Hoppensteadt to work quickly to bring hack the inter-local
agreement to the September meeting.
Mr. Dallas requested if the Board could see something beforehand because he believes it is going to take
some 'chewing on' and "if we could see something ahead of time it would be very useful. Otherwise 1 think we
won't know how to react to it"
Mr. Graveuborst completely agreed with Mr. Dallas "For our sake and the communily's sake because they
will bring uS some things where we have to end up being the naysayers. We want things that are meaningful and
need to be done and we do not want to be the negative voice saying 'no, we're not going to do this, no we're not
going to put in local public art.' We want to be able to approve most of what you bring to us. So bring uS the stuff
that needs to be done and lay off the 'I wish' items."
Mr. Iaizzo said that he believes what is coming forward by this Boanl is very reasonable and that the
control will come from the communily and uot to wony about being the naysayer. He believes that if the Board let
every item go through and get the feedback, there is the control factor because the Boanl will not be making the
decision, the communily will be making the decision and that is important to know.
Mr. Dallas said with sarcasm, "Ted, 1 know you're very high on public art. It is one of your high priorities.
(Audience laughter) 1 think that if that is the case and you do not really like il, then I think that's the thing you need
to bring that up at next meeting and bounce it off on the other people and should it be part of the "Scope of
Services. "
Mr. Levy asked if what Mr. Dallas meant was that the contract is not going to be let go until after the inter-
local agreement is done and there will be another chance to look at it
Mr. Hoppensteadt responded that the contract and the inter-local agreement would be moving parallel to
one another. "You will see the inter-local agreement and the "Scope of SeIVices" together. At this poinl, his ouly
variation from Mr. DorriIl's understanding is that we are still working on whether or not these should be three
separate and distinct documents or whether they should be attachments, but you will see all three."
Mr. Levy asked, "what about the timing of actna1Iy awarding the contract to Wilson Miller. When is the
contract going to be let go to Wilson Miller."
Mr. Hoppensteadt responded, "As Mr. Dorrill has indicated, we have to give both Boards comfort, the
Foundation Board and the SeIVices Division Board that comfort, so that you know exactly what you are getting into,
8128
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minntes
August 5, 2009
16 I! 1 A 18
what the costs are, and how the plan is going to move forward. We have talked with Wilson Miller about the issue of
public art. By counting that in, all it is saying is that in the community, if yon wanted to put in public art, where
would you put it. Again, this is a plan. It does not say that you are going to move ahead and put in statues. What it
says is that if you do it, tins is where they would go, so that you have a plan of consistency that whenever you want
to do something you know what the approved materials are; you know what the approved specs are. It is not unlike
having recipe cards in food and beverage."
Mr. Levy said thank you and just wanted to be assured that the Services Division Board was going to have
a chance to see it before it is signed.
Mr. Hoppensteadt said that the Foundation would not execute an agreement with Wilson Miller until both
Boards are comfortable.
Mr. Gravenhorst said to Mr. Iaizzo, "You insinuated and stated eloquently that we are going to act ou what
the people want to do. At what point from our approval to their contract do we find out or do we find out before our
approval. Are we going to have a community-wide poll and take a vote on this or how do we intend to find out."
Mr. Iaizzo responded that needs to be discussed and he was happy to discuss it now.
Mr. Gravenhorst said that he asked because as he understood it that an inter-local agreement would be
presented to the Board at the next meeting.
Mr. Levy said that he would think that it would come after the study is done, all the recommendations have
been made, and there are price tags to go along with it.
Chairwoman Womble said, "I think that your suggestions are being well-noted by Mr. DurriIl and Mr.
Hoppensteadt and I think that they will incorporate as much as they can into this inter-local agreement. I think that
we ueed to wait until we hear hack and then maybe we can offer some more suggestions, but until then we are really
just 'flying blind' so let us find out what they have to offer us. We cannot accept a yes or no vote from both Boards
or one or the other. They have to be both Boards because we are both putting our money toward this particular plan,
so I do not think that we have to worry about that. But I am interested in hearing what you all can come up with so
that we can go forward, possibly offer suggestions or get a real good idea as to how we're going to handle it."
Mr. laizzo responded that the issue is not that it is two Boards, but that what is important is the survey and
how it will be implemented. "A no act respouse from an unit owner, bow do you treat that. Does it fall into the
8129
16 L.l-'" J. V
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
basket as a no or does it fall into the basket as a yes. How you decide that is going to be very critical. Do we need a
two-thirds vote or do we need 50"/0."
Mr. Cravens said that what the Board needs to do is wait until there is a final prodnct to give to them.
Mr. Iaizzo said that "We're just talking ahead as to how this will unfold."
Mr. Dallas said, "We can't ask them what kind of grass they want TIus is going to get down to some real
dettil, so I think that you have to have some idea of where we are going. Probably after phase one, you will have
some idea of what you are thinking of and you bounce that off the public to get their reaction. At each phase you
keep them up to date so that we are not smprising anyone. I think that a lot of this will not be nearly as controversial
as a lot of us had thonght I think they are just nuts and bolts."
Mr. Cravens said that he did not think there needed to be any Board action on this.
Chairwoman Womble agreed and confirmed that there is no Board action to take except to wish them well
and hope that they can come up with something that we can see maybe before the next meeting, which is the first
Wednesday in September. "If we can have something to read before that point SO that we are up to speed with your
ideas before we walk in here."
Mr. Iaizzo asked if at the next meeting the Board would be deciding on those eleven items.
Chairwoman Womble said no. "What the Board will be looking at is what inter-local agreement that we
can possibly live with between the Foundation and the Services Division as in tenus of check writing, how to go
about following the legalities, technicalities, and complexities worl<ing the County with the Foundation and that
there were quite a few as well as quite a task"
Mr. Dallas said that the inter.,local agreement also will include the "Scope of Services."
Chairwoman Womble confinned.
Mr. Iaizzo said that it is all a technicality and not a Board decision to determine who pays what
Chairwoman Womble responded, "We have to detennine what those particular complexities and
technicalities are."
Mr. laizzo said, "It's a technicality. Black is black and white is white. It's got to be clear."
Mr. Moffatt said, "There are two things that you just said that triggered a thought It is not a "Scope of
Services" that we can live with. It's a "Scope of Services" and an inter-local agreement that we want"
8130
1611 A18
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minntes
August 5, 2009
ChaiIwoman Womble responded that was correct, however this is an eleven member Board and some
might be excited about everything. Out of eleven people, some may just be tJying to compromise and be pleasant
about the whole thing because it is okay, "just not exactly where they wanted the ark."
Mr. Moffatt said, "Well, I am a big supporter of the ark." (Laughter) "The second comment that you made
was that the next Board meeting is the first Wednesday of September. I would like to bring to everyone's atteutiou
that is before Labor Day and some of us think that Smnmer does not end until after Labor Day. I for one know tlJat I
will be away still celebrating snmmer. I am just wondering if maybe we should cousider moving that meeting to the
second Wednesday in September to get it after Labor Day. Just a thonght."
ChaiIwoman Womble said, "let's finish this first and then we'll come hack to that."
DISCUSSION OF STAFF ANNUAL WORK PLAN. BOARD REOUESTS AND EXPECTATIONS
Mr. Dorrill said his second item today was to "begin to wweil the way that I think and I will receive your
direction and how that will then manifust itself in things that I perceive to be priorities to you. I have included what
was in place well in advance before my arrival, which is a schedule of levels of service. I do not really want to focus
too much on that because from what I undemand it may be somewhat dated, but as the overal1levels of service for
this community did result in the annual operational work plan by month I did want the Board to get a sense of what
it is that your employees are involved with on a weekly basis because it all is subject to a schedule and the schedule
and when that rubber meets the road as Kyle meets with his foreman or supervisors on the landscape side. By way
of example is we are getting into August and September andjust about all they can do is keep the grass cut. To be
honest with you, you can almost look at it and watch it grow this time of year. There are other times of the year
where they have less frequently scheduled maintenance activities. I thonght that this would be a meaningful
presentation to the Board to let you know what specific landscape or maintenance tasks they are involved with
throughout the 52 weeks of the year. I believe that Ms. Resnick passed out a very simple first blush at what will be
those key Board designated projects and passed. Just by way of example, we had a discussion at your last meeting
that in a very short period of restriping three pedestrian crosswalks in this community. My way of thinking and then
holding staff accountable is to keep a record of that, a record that this Board voted or directed staff to follow up on
something. It will then end up on this schedule that will stay with us throughout the course of the year because it
does two things. First it will report to you when a project bas been completed. All that I have done for a living is
report to Boards. Boards are very easily frustrated when they think that they have asked us to do something, ouly to
8131
16 11 lA 18
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
ask us four months later and for ns to have some blank look on our face. If I perceive direction from this Board to
fix or take care of something, it is going to end up on here and it will tell you between myself and Mroy or Lisa, and
most importantly Kyle, whom we feel is the designated pat1y. If there is an expected completion date, then we will
list that otherwise we will tell you the date that it bas been completed from our perspective. Only as it relates to
these crosswalks, I believe that we have verified that the restriping will1ake place under a 2009 annual contract
before the end of this fiscal year, which ends 011 September 30, and the material used will be the enhanced molten
glass thermoplastic that we have discussed and Kyle bas confirmed. So that's why it is on the list and when it's
complete there will be a completion date. It will begin to make a little sense out of what we do on the staff side and I
am happy to answer any questions."
Chairwoman Womble thanked Mr. Dorrill.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION OF PLANS FOR A WEBSITE
Mr. Dorrill continued to the third item of the day, which revealed the fin;t of a series of proposals to
develop a new and substantially revised website. The cmrent purchasing department policy is to obtain three
proposals from three separate companies because it looks as though a contmct will $3,000 in design and related fees.
Two more proposals are forthcoming and that this is another project in progress. When staff bas obtained all
proposals they will make a recommendation to the Board, preferably with the lowest cost vendor.
Mr. Levy stated that he went on the website recently and it appears to be quite updated. He said that he
could find the minutes for the last meeting and there was nothing that be needed to look for that he could not find.
He asked if it was an option to continue with tlte current web site.
Mr. Dorrill said there are actually two options. One is the existing website. "Since the specifics involving
that will appear under the Chairwoman's report agenda item for today and includes a final invoice from your prior
administrator that I am not supporting and I would like to have a discussion on that. Otherwise, from my
understanding, the site that is there is a site that you own. The cmrent domain name was very carefully acquired by
your former manager. He owns the rights believe it or not, he thinks to the domain name pelicanbayservices.com. I
do not share that belief. He paid to register that domain name and it is my understanding that the annual renewal of
that domain name will occur next month. How we go about re-registering the website domain may incur a little bit
of cost:'
Mr. Levy said it is either one or the other; we either stay with the cmrent website or develop a new one.
8132
Pelican Bay Senices Division Snmmary Meeting Minutes
Augost 5, 2009
16ft!
A18
Mr. Dorrill said, "Yes and having said that we also have a page on the Connly's website. Mr. Dorrill asked
staff if minutes, adopted budgets or financial statements available through the Counly Manager's website for which
we have been giveu a page."
Ms. Resnick asked Mr. Levy which site he was referring to where he found the approved minutes from
meetings.
Mr. Levy said that he started on the Pelican Bay Services Division website and was probably redirected by
a link over to the Collier Counly website where he was able to find the current and approved minutes from meetings.
Mr. Dorrill answered that was correct and pointed out that all of the work was done by current
administrative staff and not by the former manager and was why there were some issues as to whether the invoice
received for web seIVices was valid for a final payment to turn over the site.
Mr. Levy asked if a discussion was going to be had to go ahead with a new website.
Mr. Dorrill responded thaI be was proceeding upon his perceived prior Board direction 10 either updating
and improving the existing website and if that is not what the Board wanted, to let him know.
Mr. Levy asked when the pelicanbayservices.com websile was Iasl updated.
Challwoman Womble stepped in, said that works together with what she wants to discuss under the
Challwoman's report, and asked Ms. Resnick to share with the Board what she bas been doing with the website
and her concerns.
Ms. Resnick said that first, as an interim solution to keep the lines of communication open; she contacted
the County and requested a webpage for the Pelican Bay SeIVices Division. This allowed her to post current
information such as meeting notices, agendas, meeting backup material, minutes, and budgets. That page is
completely informational and the design cannot be changed. She showed the sample menn that she designed on the
PowerPoint screen and explained thaI il was a basic menu with a list of headings and that the picture can be
modified. She said that her goal was to develop an organized, easy to maneuver, nice looking and up-to-date
website.
Chairwoman Womble asked if Ms. Resnick felt comfortable developing a website. Regarding cost she
said confirmed with Ms. Resnick that the job would be part of her job responsibilities and current salary.
8133
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
16 'iI fA 18
Ms. Resnick affmned that yes, she felt comfortable taking on the job and that it would become one of her
job responsibilities and save money. She said that she discussed cost with Mr. Cravens and after purchasing some
initial software, domain name, and hosting service, the cost would be approximately $400 - $500 per year.
Chairwoman Womble said that she was looking at a proposal that would cost somewhere between $6,000
- $7,000 per year.
Mr. Dorrill said that this is a decent idea, but that he believes it would be better having a professional
company hosting the websile 10 maintain the selVer and olher nuts and bolts.
Mr. Levy asked how much that cost monthly.
Mr. Dorrill said approximately $50-$100 monthly depending mostly upon the storage requirements.
Mr. Cravens thought that it would cost much less.
Mr. Dorrill answered that from what he understood, the pelicanbayservices.com website has an archive of
information going back to inception of the Independent District. Mr. DorriII said that paying monthly storage for
that is not sensible because that information can be made available from other sources such as the Clerk of Courts
or on a disc.
Mr. Cravens said that the files do not really take up that much space in tenns of hosting and tIw video
files and multimedia used a lot of space. Maintaining the history docnmeots on the website can be done with
literally no expense. A video, such as "Jewel of Pelican Bay" posted is what would take up quite a bit of space.
Regarding domain names, he said that pelicanbayservicesdivisiou.com could be pun:hased for $6.95.
Chairwoman Womble said that for $6.95 the Board should go for it and asked the Board for comments.
Mr. Moffatt said that he did not know there were two sources for information. He said that he has always
gone through the pelicanbayservices.com website.
Mr. Levy said that he visited the pelicanbayservices.com website and was re-directed to the Collier
County sile where he believes that everything is current.
Mr. Cravens said that the Board members information was on the pelicanbayservices.com website as well
as movies. Mary also recently corrected the Board members' term expirntion dates that were incorrectIy listed on
the pelicanbayservices.com website.
8134
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
1611
/ A 18
Mr. Domll said that he did not think any Board direction was need and this infonnation was meant to
provide an update. He further stated that he did not feel it was necessary to pay the $4,200 bill from Mr. Petty for
certain requests and domain related services.
CHAIRWOMAN'S REPORT
DISCUSSION OF DISTRICT OFFICES WEB SERVICES INVOICE
Chairwoman Womble referred to the District Offices website invoice. She said that she has been assured
that if "we don't use their website as we discussed then we don't have to pay the $4,200 invoice. We have
alternative solutions and one is what Ms. Resnick has shown us, another is different companies willing to develop a
website with us." She then asked the Board's direction as to whether to pay the District Offices invoice and
continue using that website, or let it go and develop a new website.
Mr. Cmvens made a motion to discontinue using our fonner administrator's District Offices
pelicanhayservices.com website and ask staff to develop a new website.
Mr. Gravenborst seconded.
Mr. Levy asked if the invoice reflected work that had been performed.
Mr. Damll responded no, the invoice was for work that was contemplated and staff feels that it is
unnecessary.
Mr. Levy repeated the question fur confinnation.
Chairwoman Womble confirmed and said that if they were wrong that she was certain that District Offices
make contact and bill for appropriate charges.
Mr. Levy asked if the cmrent website would end immediately.
Mr. Dorrill said yes, but that it would not take much time to get a new one up and running.
The Board voted on the motion and it was unanimously approved.
Mr. Cravens nuule a motion to discontinue using former Administrator's Distrid
Of.fiees pelicanbayservkes.com website, deny payment of District OfJ'rce's website
services $4,200 invoice, and tasked stoff to tkvelop a new website. Mr. Gravenhorst
seconded the motion. The Board - willi a "ole of 7 - O.
DISCUSSION OF PREFERENCE FOR VERBATIM OR CONDENSED MEETING MINUTES
Mr. Dorrill said that he wanted to commend the staff for revising the format of the minntes. "They are
about 40% less than they would be if they were verl>atim minntes, so we cut down on maybe 1,000 pages of pager
8135
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minntes
August 5, 2009
1611A18
based on all of the copies normally made. I think it memorializes the actions and attendants of your last meeting
and we can make some improvements as we go along, but it is certainly going to cost less as opposed to tIying to
create a verbatim transcript. In that rare instance where it is important to go back and compare a verbatim segment
of a specific Board discussion or actionable item we obviously have the ability to do that."
Chairwoman Womble said that example would be discussed at the next meeting with the motion prepared
and presented.
Mr. Cravens said that looking at the sunnnary minutes he believes that there was more to this than what is
shown here and that he wants to get to the flavor of the discussion. "Is there a source that I can get this information.
The reason I ask is because if I am not present at a meeting and I see the summary minutes, I am really not getting
the discussion that transpired or the feel for what was brought up and what was discussed, or if I am reading the
summary minutes and believe that it does not sound right to me, then is there a mechanism to get the full picture so
to speak."
Mr. Dorrill said that it is his understanding that these proceedings are recorded and digitized and available
so from the comfort of home if one cannot sleep at night and listen to the entire meeting.
Mr. Cravens said that it is not available now.
Mr. Dorrill said that the recordings can be made available.
Mr. Cravens asked if what if there was a question about the authority of the minutes wonld the digitized
recording take priority over the summary because he believes that sunnnary minutes can be manipulated. Mr.
Cravens made clear that he wasn't inferring or accusing Ms. Resnick: of doing any such action, but he said that he
has seen situations where summary minutes have been used to convey that certain things happened that did not
happen at meetings and he is trying to prevent such a case from occurring. He said that he was concerned if such a
case where summary minutes did convey manipulation of the facts and those sunnnary minutes were approved.
Chairwoman Womble responded that if Mr. Cravens felt that something was not quite right that Mr.
Cravens conld check it and bring it before the BoanI and amend the minutes at that poiut if a consensus reach that
the summary was incorrect.
Mr. Cravens said that as Mr. Donill pointed oul, he conId listen to the audio recording. Mr. Cravens used
an example to explain. He stated that he was a former lecturer and his students would ask him if he minded if they
8136
161,1
A18
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minntes
August 5, 2009
could record his lectures. He said it was no problem but "if you try to fmd infonnation on a 50 minute audio
program, it is very difficult, cumbersome and laborious process."
Chairwoman Womble asked Ms. Resnick if there was a hard copy of the minutes that she worked from or
did she just listen and type.
Ms. Resnick responded that she listened to the tape to create the hard copy.
Mr. Dornll said that he has worked in public administration at the local level for 40 years and "can
probably cite two instances of concern that required us to go back and re-listen to the tape, and produce a verbatim
transcript and said that under his administration he can assure the Board that there will be no effort to manipulate or
frame minutes for some desired outcome other than what was clearly stated."
Mr. Cravens stressed that he was not implying that there would be any such manipulation.
Mr. Durnil said that to alleviate any concerns if there are any questions as to what exa(tly was actuaIly
said, we can find it on the digital audio recording and provide verbatim minutes.
Mr. Gravenhorst questioned if the digital audio recording takes precedence over the summary minutes.
Mr. Dorrill answered that from his perspective the digital audio recording would take precedence. He
explained that at the Connl)' Commission meetings an agenda index "recap" sheet that only showed the motions,
votes, and outcomes. Actual minutes are placed on the agenda under "Miscellaneous Correspondence" and always
approved without discussion.
Chairwoman Womble addressed Mr. Cravens to say that Ms. Resnick can probably find the infonnation
being sought very easily after listening to the recordings and writing the summary minutes.
Ms. Resnick confirmed.
Chairwoman Womble added especially if it is a recent meeting.
Mr. Dornll said that staff would continue to produce summary minutes and if three months down the road
and the Board is not satisfied then the Board can address a policy decision.
Chairwoman Womble asked Mr. Cravens for his approval.
Mr. Cravens confirmed his understanding regarding summary minutes and that slaff would continue to
produce summary minutes on an interim basis.
Chairwoman Womble said that summary minutes were provided only once and that the Board should give
it another try.
8137
16 'll
A18
Pelican Bay Services Division Snmmary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
Mr. Dorrill said that concluded his report
Mr. Moffatt asked if any Board action or motion was needed in regards to the meeting minutes fonnat
Chairwoman Womble said no. She said that the summary minutes were very satisfactory for the first time
out and it is a new timesaving venture. She said to Mr. Cmvens and the Board that if they find something that they
are uncomfortable with to bring it to the attention of the Board.
Mr. Cravens asked Mr. Hoppensteadt whether the Foundation did summary or verbatim minutes.
Mr. Hoppensteadt answered that the Foundation does summary minutes.
Mr. Cmvens acknowledged.
No further discussion.
CHAIRWOMAN'S REPORT
REVIEW APPLICATION AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE COMMERCIAL
INTERESTS ADVISORY BOARD APPLICANT
Chairwoman Womble introduced the next item, which was to review and make a recommendation to
appoint Ms. Jill Kobe to the Pelican Bay SeIvices Division Advisory Board as a CommeIcial Interests member.
Since receiving the application, Ms. Kobe has registered to vote in Collier County, a requirement to be appointed to
an advisory board. Chairwoman Womble added that Ms. Kobe is Geneml Manager of the Waterside Shops and
interested in becoming a member of the Board as a CommeIcial Interests member. Chairwoman Womble stated
that she had not yet met Ms. Kobe and asked the audience if she was present. Ms. Kobe was not present.
Chairwoman Womble asked the Board members if anyone had met Ms. Kobe.
Mr. Cravens responded that he had not met Ms. Kobe bnt had first noticed on the application that she was
not a registered to vote in Collier ColDlty, one of the requirements to be appointed to an advisory board, but she has
since become a registered voter, so that is of no concern Mr. Cravens had concerns because as he understood from
the application, Ms. Kobe has been a resident of Collier County for a very short period of one or two months. He
asked if this was correct.
Mr. Hoppensteadt confinned that Ms. Kobe had very recently relocated to the area.
He added that she has "virtually no background of what's going on in the community." He added, "she
appears to have been active in the community from past experience but for a person who has only been here for a
month or two, to come on to the Board seems to me a little bit questionable."
8138
16111
Ala
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
Chairwoman Womble told the Board that they have 41 days to make a decision and asked Ms.
McCaughtry for clarification.
Ms. McCaughlIy explained that Ms. Kobe applied as a commercial interests member as General Manager
of the Waterside Shops and that if this Board approves the appointment that Ms. McCaughtry would forward that
infonnation to the Commissioners who would at their next meeting in September, make the decision to appoint Ms.
Kobe. If appointed, the BCC would officially notify Ms. Kobe.
Mr. Gravenhorst stated, "If Ms. Kobe is nOl approved then they will have to find someone else and she is a
good applicant. It could take a long time to find someone else. ~
Chairwoman Womble said that from wha1 she understands, Ms. Kobe meets with people from other
busiuesses in Waterside shops and that those people could direct her with their concerns which are probably mainly
safety, security, lighting, and street areas.
Mr. Gravenhorst stated that he agreed and if there were DOl any other negative aspects that they they
should trust the Forl>es company for putting her in charge of such an establishment as Waterside Shops and made a
motion to approve Ms. Kobe's Commercial Interests appointment to the Services Division's Advisory Board.
Mr. Cravens seconded.
There was no further discussion and the Board voted 7-0 in favor of the motion.
Mr. Gravenhorst made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Ms. JiU Kobe
be appointed to the Pelictm Bay Services Division Advisory Board as u Commercial Interests member.
Mr. Cravens seconded the motion.. The Board voted on the motion and anl1l'oved UJUUJimouslv 7-0.
DISCUSSION OF NEED TO REESTABLISH MEETINGS OF THE CLAM BAY COMMITTEE
Chairwoman Womble introduced the next agenda item, which was a discussion of the need to reestablish
meetings of the Clam Bay Committee. She said that this was discussed at the July 13 meeting and the Board
decided they needed time to think about it. She then requested a discussion and asked if anyone had any
suggestions or comments.
Mr. Crnvens referred to Dr. Ted Raia's email regarding this issue. He said that from his understanding of
Dr. Raia's correspondence, because the Foundation now has the powers within the quit claim deed to make
meaningful decisions regarding what actions are taken regarding Clam Bay that it might be better for the Services
Division as a whole to have a representative on some type of a Foundation committee dealing with Clam Bay. He
8139
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
asked Mr. Hoppensteadt ifhe had seen Dr. Raia's letter and for Mr. Hoppensteadt's perspective regarding Dr.
16 /11
A18
Raia's correspondence.
Mr. Hoppensteadt acknowledged he had read the correspondence.
Mr. Cmvens added that the Foundation currently has a committee dealing with issues surrounding Clam
Bay and Com Obley. a member of that committee is here today, Mr. Cmvens said that he believed, "Dr. Raia is
suggesting that a Services Division Board member be appointed to the Foundation's committee, but that's the
Foundation's business, not ours."
Chairwoman Womble stepped in and snggested that it would be more wise politically as an advisory
board to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners for one of us to sit in on the meetings as a liaison then
come back with a report to the Board rather than become an actual member of the committee.
Mr. Cmvens said that he sensed that Dr. Raia wants to be appointed to this committee as a functional
member and as a liaison to the Services Division.
Chairwoman Womble agreed, but said rather than turn it in to a political situation, she snggested that a
liaison from the Services Division simply sit in ou those meetings and come hack and bring information from the
meeting hack to the Board.
Mr. Cmvens asked Mr. Hoppensteadt to affirm how authoritative the Foundation's Clam Bay committee
was to make a decision to appoint someone to their committee.
Mr. Hoppensteadt responded, "The Foundation retains appraval rights, but the property is owned by the
County and work within that estuary is currently being initiated by the County. The question really is is whether
the Services Division's Board believes that there is a need or desire to duplicate or conflict with the County and the
Clam Bay Advisory Committee. His hesitatiou is that the Foundation's role is not one of maintenance or initiating
activities in Clam Bay; this has typically been the role of the Clam Bay Subcommittee. Directing Kyle and Tim is
not the role of the Foundation or the role that the Foundation would really assume. Chairwoman Womble is correct
that it is a political issue really for this Board to decide if in the face of the County's establishment of the Clam Bay
Advisory Committee if a second advisory board to the County is something that yon should ask Mr. Dorrill for
some direction. You are really asking whether you want additional maintenance which I think is in the ordinance
component of this committee, so with that I will end my comments."
8140
Pelican Bay Services Division Snmmary Meeting Minntes
Angust 5, 2009
16 111 A 18
Mr. Cravens made the comment that he did not believe that the County's existing Clam Bay Committee
nor the Fonndation are either addressing mangroves. "~I believe that in our discnssion at the last meeting, and I
believe it was Chairwoman Womble who suggested that we change the name of the Clam Bay Snbcommittee to the
Mangrove Committee. Someone made the comment. Bnt there really iso't anyone looking after the mangroves
and mangrove initiatives really need to be addressed. The County is more concerned about the Bay and navigation
and I think that the Foundation is also concerned about that bot there are issues related to the Mangroves."
Chairwoman Womble said that she had to "take exception to that. Mr. Hall and Mr. Lukasz have looked at
questions from different people in the community; we have gone up on top of the Grovesnor and looked down on
things and wherever it was possible to see what needed to be seen. Mr. Hall is constantly monitoring and Mr.
Lukasz takes water samples once a month. We are checking on mangroves and the cuts are still good along the
trams and back end of Bay Colony and) have looked at them myself many times over the last year. And I am not
sure why you say that no one is paying attention to the mangroves."
Mr. Cravens responded that there is no one responsible on this Board addressing mangrove issues
Mr. Dallas said that this Board is responsible as a whole
Mr. Iaizzo expressed the same.
Chairwoman Womble asked Mr. Cravens what more did he want us to do?
Mr. Cravens said that the Clam Bay Committee that we had, since it is no longer overseeing those areas
that the County's new Clam Bay Committee nor the Foundation Committee that maybe the name of the committee
should be changed to Mangrove Committee and charged with the function of looking at the health of the
mangroves.
Chairwoman Womble responded that Mr. Hall monitors the mangroves and reports back information. Mr.
Lukasz provides information. "As Mr. Dorrill gets more up to speed then he will be providing us with information.
What we did with the Clam Bay Subcommittee was simply realize that we were doing the same thing twice over
and that would be what we are doing again if we had a Mangrove Committee. ) would not get rid of the Clam Bay
Committee because I think it is important to hang on to that because we may need that in the future. If you want to
create another committee to repon information about the mangroves to the Clam Bay Committee who would repon
back to this Board, but I am not going to sunset the Clam Bay Committee. As far as the mangroves are concerned I
feel very comfonable and ) thought that everyone was with the way that Mr. Hall and Mr. Lukasz have been
8141
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
16111 A18
monitoring the mangroves and I do know that they respond qnickly to any citizen's concerns. If there is a need for
a committee then I would like to be made aware."
Mr. Cravens said that the ouly reason he wanted to create a separate Mangrove committee was because he
thought the Clam Bay Committee was going to be sun set, so there is not a need for a Mangrove committee.
Chairwoman Womble said that it is the Chairwoman's prerogative to decide whether to have a committee
and that she would like to keep the Clam Bay Committee and asked the Board if they agreed or not
Mr. Moffatt, Mr. laizzo, and Mr. Gravenhorst asked who was on the Clam Bay Committee.
Mr. Cravens responded that the last meeting that the Clam Bay Committee had was when John Domenie
was Chair. It has not met since then.
Chairwoman Womble disagreed and said that she chaired the last meeting and that she was on the Clam
Bay Committee but it was hard to say whom else because there has been SO many changes on the Board.
Mr. Levy said that Dr. Raia was also on the Clam Bay Committee.
Chairwoman Womble said that Mr. Cravens was also pot on the Clam Bay Committee when he was
appointed to the Board
Mr. Gravenhorst said, "Mr. Cravens had a point to a point, it sounds like the managerial oversight is
being, even though you are doing it, it is an ad hoc position so to speak, without any formal meetings or oversight,
or reports."
Chairwoman Womble said that reports are being made every month when Mr. Hall and Mr. Lukasz
inform the Board at these meetings and suggested he read the minutes.
Mr. Gravenhorst said that he understood that but that she was the only one who met with Mr. Hall and Mr.
Lukasz.
Chairwoman Womble asked Mr. Lukasz and Mr. Hall if anyone else from the Board had asked questions
and Mr. Lukasz replied that he had met with Mr. Cravens a couple of times.
Mr. Gravenhorst said that his only concern was that there might be a need for something a little more
formal in regards to the Clam Bay Committee.
Mr. Cravens said if the Clam Bay Committee will stay a standing committee he would like a meeting
schedule.
8142
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
16111 A18
Chairwoman Womble informed Mr. Crnvens that the Board decided the Committee was not going to meet
Mr. Cravens said that it does not make sense to have a committee that does not meet
Chairwoman Womble responded that the committee is being held "in the bay" for now. The Board
decided not to meet because everything that was discussed at the subcommittee meetings were also being discussed
at the regular Board meetings. She pointed out that Mr. Gravenhorst was quite vocal about the duplicity and that it
would be a waste of time
Mr. Iaizzo said that it appears that the Board needs to wait for Mr. Hall to inform them of a problem
before any action is taken.
Chairwoman Womble agreed and said that as fur as mangroves are concerned, "Mrs. Marcia Cravens
President of the Mangrove Action Group and some of us are involved in that including myself. People in the
audience are also involved. Based on the historical references, the Board felt that it was nnt necessary to have
another committee meeting. Virtually every member of this Board is on another committee and they were feeling
like it was a too much considering the regular Board meetings and other committee meetings."
Mr. Cravens requested a list of all committees and members of those committees because the information
was not posted on the website. He said that he knew who was on the ad hoc Safety Committee because he was on
it with Chairwoman Womble and Mr. Gravenhorst.
Chairwoman Womble asked what he meant by ad hoc.
Mr. Cravens said that an ad hoc committee was one that dealt with a specific issue and once dealt with
,
then they would cease to meet and he thought that they had done their job and it was sunset He asked if it was
actoally an ad hoc committee.
Chairwoman Womble responded that it should be something continual because there are always safety
issues to be brought forward and investigated.
Mr. Cravens responded to Chairwoman Womble that he was "confused because yon said earlier yon were
the one who appointed and created committees and now you are saying it is what the Board wanted."
Chairwoman Womble responded that she listens and makes informed decisions based on discussions with
the Board.
Mr. Cravens said okay and asked again for a list of committees and members.
8143
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
16 I p.! A 18
Chairwoman Womble directed staff to provide the Board with a list of committees and members
especially going into a new fiscal year the Board may want to make some changes and also may come up with
issues that ueed to be addressed with one of the standing committees or there may be a need to create a new
committee.
Mr. Iaizw said that Mr. Hall could simply give a monthly update report to the Board at the meetings he
attends.
Chairwoman Womble asked if there was any further discussion or comments.
Mr. Dorrill said he had one question. He said that he had a meeting last week with the County Manager
and Deputy County Manager regarding search for money but he posed a question to them about the new Clam Bay
Advisory Board. After talkiog to the County Manager it is his impression that they would consider that advisory
Board's enabling legislation to include areas pertaining to conservation and mangroves in addition to addition to
open or navigable waters and if that is not the Board's impression then he would like to know what it is.
SeveraJ Board members, Mr. Iaizw, Mr. Levy, Mr. Craven, and Mr. Moffatt concluded that particular
Clam Bay Committee is scheduled to sunset in December 2009.
Mr. Moffatt asked Mr. Dorrill what was Tim Hall's role going forward uow regarding Clam Bay because
his coutract and purchase order supporting payment expires at the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30, 2009 and wanted
to know if they wonld have to enter into a new agreement.
Mr. Dorrill said yes for two reasons. He said that he met with Mr. Hall and the principal of the firm at
TurrelL Hall, & Associates. . "We have two activities that warrnot continual "consultant of record" services. One is
the annual compliance with maintenance channels or ditches that require ongoing maintenance and issues that may
arise pertaining to the spoils. If we need to continue to deal with the environmental agencies in terms of
maintaining the channel system created for restoration purposes. In addition, the second item is water quality
sampling projects occurring now, and staff is drawing water samples in accordance with the County's testing lab
protocol. If we would want a peer review or analysis periodically from our current consultants, then Mr. Dorrill
recommended that if an annual contract with them is abont to expire, that it should be renewed"
Mr. Crnvens made a motion to direct Mr. Dorrill to renew !be contract with the "consultant of record,"
Turrell Hall & Associates for one year to provide annual compliance maintenance and water qnality sampling peer
reviews and analysis periodically.
8144
Pelican Bay Senices Division Summary Meeting Minutes
, August 5, 2009
16 III A18
Mr. Iaizw seconded the motion.
Chairwoman Womble asked Mr. Hall ifhe was interested.
Mr. Hall said yes.
Chairwoman Womble asked if there was any further discussion.
Mr. Moffatt added that the motion should inclnde that there is money available in next year's budget to
provide for such a conlrnct. He said that he did not recall how much money it was.
Mr. Levy said it was the same percentage as last year.
Mr. Moffatt said that if the contract was renewed and Mr. Hall and Mr. LukasZ continued their
monitoring, then the two could report to the Board at every meeting if there is something to report and that would
cover the mangroves. He did not think that the Clam Bay Committee couJd do very much with the mangroves
without funding.
Chairwoman Womble said that we do have the funds.
Mr. Levy said the County gave us the Fund III money, SO they know we are doing it.
Chairwoman Womble said that Mr. Mndd and Mr. Halas gave us the go-ahead with the mangroves
months ago, so that what we are doing, keeping it going.
Chairwoman Womble asked those in favor of asking Turrell Hall and Associates to continue with
scientific monitoring of the mangroves and asked Mr. Hall if there was anything else to include.
Mr. Dorrill said that there was a public education pennit requirement that is still open and coming to a
close and he is looking into making some fioal payments public education efforts, so there may be an Other
GeneraJ Consultant area that does include both environmental consulting and public education
Mr. Hall said that in the past there were line items for monitoring activities and then another side fund for
other things that may arise that you needed our help. He asked Mr. Dorrill if it was a purchasing reqnirement to go
out to a public bid to renew the conlrnct
Mr. Dorrill said that the process would comply with the purchasing policy.
Mr. Cravens asked Mr. Hall if he remembered the "Jewel of Pelican Bay" video and said that there is
another video in process.
Mr. Dorrill said that he was attempting to conclude that project.
Mr. Cravens requested that Mr. Dorrill bring the product to the Board for review
8145
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
16 11 A 18
Chairwoman Womble said that item would be on the next agenda.
Mr. Hall said that the video was approximately 30-45+ minutes.
Mr. Dorrill said that the intent was to bave a highly visual and accurate representation of what yon have
been involved in and also played on the the Foundation's community access channel and the County's government
access channel for maximum exposure.
Mr. Moffatt suggested the Board receive the video in advance of the meeting to not waste 45 minutes at
the meeting.
Mr. Iaizw said that he was concerned about the mangroves. He asked Mr. Hall if he had the tools to
provide early warning or a head's up a problem needs addressing. Mr. Iaizzo expressed that if Mr. Hall did not
have the tools, to let the Board know what he needed and the Board would provide.
Mr. Hall answered, "In terms oftools it's all based on visual monitoring of the mangroves in the field and
taking aerial photographs of Clam Bay severnl times of the year. Officially there is a large-2oo scale aerial shot in
color and infrared that helps identify areas of stress, but it is really a matter of spending time in the system so that
you know when it does not look right or the same as it did before and that something is happening, that is the early
warning. The we try to figure out why it is happening. The last instance of mangrove die-off was a residual from
the hurricane of severnl years ago because there is new growth coming out of the hasin and some of the areas were
reopened by flushing areas that were closed off from an accumulation of sand from hurricane Charlie. We are
monitoring it The process though is based on visual monitoring. We see something personally or receive a call
from someone that something does not look right and then we investigate it, figure out if it's different or not and if
so what is causing it"
Mr. Cravens asked Mr. Hall if Ms. Cathy Worley of the Conservancy was still studying the mangroves.
Mr. Hall did not believe she received funding to coutinue.
Mr. Cravens said that the Foundation gave her fonding to study the mangroves in Pelican Bay but the
funds were exhausted and suggested that Ms. Worley be contacted to make a presentation of her findings.
Mr. laizzo said it should be Mr. Hall's decision if she will be an asset. He also asked Mr. Hall if he was
working for Gary McAlpin.
Mr. Hall said that Mr. McAlpin asked his firm to provide a cost to perfonn sediment sampling in Outer
Clam Bay for a stndy that PBS&J is doing but did not know if the work is going to be done or not
8146
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
161'1
A18
There was no further discussion and a vote was taken on the motion to renew Mr. Hall's contrncl and the
Board approved unanimously.
Mr. Cravens made a motion to dired Mr. DorriIl to renew Turrell Hall & Associotes' contrad as
"consuftant of record" for one year for st!FI'ien to J) monitor CfI1m Bay _gropes; 2) ongoing
mainrenance of the channel system and ditches for restoration purposes in compliance with
environmental agencies requirements and subsequent issues that ~ arise pertaining to the spoil;
and 3) periodic water qualiJy reports or peer review I1IIIliJ>Sis. Mr. laiw> seconded the nwtion. A vote
was taken on the motion and the Board .
Mr. Crnvens bad a question but Chairwoman Womble requested that he hold off until next meeting or
email the office and let them know there is a concern.
CAPITAL PROJECTS
DISCUSSION AND UPDATE OF THE NORTH TRAM STATION 118 PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
Mr. Lukasz said that the cost estimate for the signalization of the crosswalk by the North Tram Station
originally came in at $29,000, but it will be $33,000 for the installation of the siguals. The ouly difference from the
Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard crosswalk is that there will be two siguallights from each direction becanse it is a
four-lane highway.
Mr. Moffatt asked if the cost was $29,000 + $33,000 or $62,000.
Mr. Lukasz responded no and that the total cost is $33,000.
Mr. laizzo asked how much time it was going to take until completion.
Mr. Levy said that the Board bas not yet approved the project
Mr. Lukasz stated that the Board requested an estimate for the project at the last meeting.
Mr. Cravens confirmed that Mr. Lukasz was bringing back the estimate the Board requested at the last
meeting. Mr. Cravens then asked how much the permit would cost.
Mr. Lukasz responded that the $33,000 estimate included the cost of the permit.
Mr. Cravens addressed Mr. Moffatt and said, "Jerry, you made a motion at the last meeting to approve that
and I think what would happen is we held it up until Kyle could come back and report to us. "
Mr. Moffatt responded, "if you are suggesting that I make that motion again to approve, then I will make a
motion to approve the crosswalk at Station #8. And I think that you seconded it Tom"
Mr. Cravens responded, "if yon are making a suggestion that I second it, I second it."
Mr. Levy asked if it was open for discussion.
8147
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
16 111
A18
Mr. Cravens said, "Certaiuly."
Mr. Levy said, "We are about to hire a consultant that is going to be doing a lot of work, major stuff. It
includes safety, it includes common traffic, and we have uow way of knowing what is going to come out of that
study and I believe that it would be a mistake to preempt that study and make a substantial expenditure of
community money on something that mayor may not be a recommended item My opinion of the existing
crosswalk is that it is very visible and there are many sigus identifying it as a crosswalk to approaching trnffic. The
crosswalk is scheduled for restriping with thermoplastic material that will help illuminate it especially at night At
this time I do not believe that we shonld do that and wait for the results of the study and spending $33,000 of
community money now would be poor judgment on our part. Expenditures now will only lead to bigger
assessments later when it comes time to implement the Strategic PIan which is going to cost pleuty of money."
Mr. Dallas agreed with Mr. Levy and added that he believes that the Board is trying to find the most
expensive solution to the problem that we can and that we should slow down and try the striping, see how it works.
"We sort of started out with the Rolls Royce..." and "I would rnther start ont with the Chevy."
Chairwoman Womble said that there was there was the added impetus of the parking lot not being
completed and at this time it would be deleterious to the budget and Board to do something that would be this costly
when there are changes coming. "We do have a consultant that is on the way who may recommend something
comparable that is not as costJy."
Mr. Iaizzo said, .'We have the Strategic Planning on our plate too."
Chairwoman Womble agreed.
Mr. Dallas and Mr. Levy said that moving the entrnnce driveway will help.
Chairwoman Womble asked Mr. Lukasz if that was an area that could be striped.
Mr. Lukasz responded yes.
Mr. Moffatt said, "Given the enlightenment from my compatriot here on the Bndget Committee, I withdrnw
my motion."
Chairwoman Womble said that signalization of the crosswalk at the North Trnm Station #8 wonld be tabled
in case it ever needed to be brought forward again if there was a reason to.
8148
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
161[
A18
STREET LIGHTING POLE REWCATION UPDATE
Mr. Lukasz said that work began on the relocation of the streetlights at four intersections this week and
should be completed before the end of the week. The thermoplastic striping and divided median sigu was installed
on Gulf Park Drive.
Chairwoman Womble said that the divided median was much more visible now. She asked Mr. Lukasz if
he recalled the letter from Mr. Ritger from the Sanctuary regarding the overgrowth at the intersection of Oakmont
Parkway and Pine Creek Lane. If a driver was entering Oakmont from Pine Creek to head west, the overgrowth on
the northern sectiou of the Oakmont median was blocking the view of the intersection, so you couldo't see any
vehicles traveling sonth on Oakmout
Mr. Lukasz said that the overgrowth had been removed from those areas.
Chairwoman Womble said that she knew and said that she drove it and came ont of some of those side
streets and that it was much better and thanked Mr. Lukasz fur taking care of it
Mr. Moffatt asked Mr. Lukasz if the Services Division maintained the portion of Oakmont between Pelican
Bay Boulevard and the Shopping Center becanse the center divider is overgrown and visibility is almost zero and
that cars cannot be seeu coming out
Mr. Lukasz responded that area is one the Services Division maintains and that he would take care of it
COMMUNITY ISSUES
UPDATE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BERM MANGROVE DIE-OFF AREA. WATER
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND MONITORING REPORT
Chairwoman Womble hand the floor over 10 Mr. Tim Hall to provide an update on the mangrove die-off
area, water management system and monitoring report.
Mr. Hall said that the die-off was doe to there was growth in the swale on the west side of the berm and
most of the growth was mangroves. The Services Division is anthorized and required to m.int.in that swale, so that
water will continue to flow through the swale. Because most of that growth was mangroves they were afraid that
there would be a lot of community questions abont that, so before they started the work:, he and Mr. Lukasz wanted
to coordinate the work with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and Sonth Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD.) Mr. Hall said that he met with Mr. Crnvens to answer some questions that Mr.
Cravens had. Mr. Hall and Mr. Lukasz met with SFWMD and SFWMD approved the proposed work that was going
to be done. The FDEP knew that the SFWMD was overseeing that project bul requested that they be notified when
8149
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
161 f'
A18
the work was going to begin, so that they could forward any calls to SFWMD. The letter in the meeting packet from
Mr. Hall to FDEP was notification to FDEP that the mangrove removal and trimming associated with maintenance
of the storm water management swale was commenciug. The project started last week (week ending 7/31/09,) but is
still in progress and is expected to be ougoing for some time.
Chairwoman Womble said that the feedback that she has received is very positive and that the people in the
commtmity are thrilled and thanked Mr. Hall.
COMMfITEE REPORTS
BUDGET COMMITfEE
Mr. Moffatt stated that there are no updates from the Budget Committee since the last meeting. He added
that it was his goal to bave fewer Budget Committee meetings early on during the upcoming fiscal year when there
is not much to talk about and spend the time on meetings when there are actuaI numbers to review and discuss.
Mr. Levy said that from what he understood Mr. Dorrill is working on a financial statement that we could
have on a monthly basis.
Mr. Dorrill responded that they were somewhat constrnined by the Couuty's software and reporting format,
but that he did convey to the County that the report was not adequate for the Board's needs for a consolidated
balance sheet and also a statement of revenue and expenses, and profit and loss because this is of special importance.
That is the type of information that he would like to provide to the Board on a regular hasis.
Mr. Iaizw said, "can we do that in black and white?"
Mr. Dorrill responded, "and no red flags."
(laughter)
Mr. Moffatt added, "summary information, but meaningful."
Mr. Dorrill affirmed, "yes."
SAFETY COMMITfEE
Chairwoman Womble asked if there was anything to report by the Safety Committee.
Mr. Gravenhorst said that there was nothing further to report from what Mr. Lukasz had reported earlier in
the meeting regarding street Iarups being relocated. He stated that it is the Committee's responsibility to this Board
to identify safety items, report those to this Board, and act in accordance in a given length of time. He said that they
have identified safety issues that have been and will continue to be safety issues whether they are pedestrian
8150
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
16 I ~ll
A18
crosswalks or other safety issues and fuilure to act within a reasonable time, i.e., waiting for the Strntegic Planning
Committee or the get the list of recommendations from the landscape architect couJd be cause for a fatal accident
He added that he was not trying to scare anyone, but he believed that the Board has to act within a reasonable period
of time from when the safety item was identified and two years would be too long to wait
Mr. Levy asked what the hasis was or criteria used to identifY a safety issue and if there were incident
reports or other criteria to obtain this informatiou.
Mr. Grnvenhorst responded that he was "stating the obvious which is that the Committee identified an area
of safety concern" and described the crosswaIk at Tram Station #8 and that the Committee and Board is "on public
record of identifYiug it as a safety issue."
Mr. Levy asked Mr. Gravenhorst if there were any documented incidents because he was not aware of any.
Mr. Grnvenhorst said that he had witoessed many close calls at that location.
Mr. Crnvens responded to Mr. Levy that at the last meeting, Mr. Gibson personalJy attested to serious
problems at that crosswalkJintersectiOD.
Chairwoman Womble added that Mr. Gibson also accepted the fact that installing the thermoplastic striping
would help. She said that she believes the Board is addressing this concern and responding appropriately and
responsibly. She added that there are other fuctors regarding the response and solntion that the Board should be
aware of including careful budgeting and precedence. She said that they need to see where the entrnnce to the
parking lot at Tram Station #8 goes before striping and changing things.
Mr. Cravens, Mr. Graveuborst, and Mr. Moffatt said that the driveway is there already there.
Mr. Gravenhorst added that the Foundation and the Facility Committee took action on the parking lot
because of safety reasons and that discussion predated the Safety Committee's discussion of the crosswalk. He said
that according to the Facility Committee's meeting minutes, one of the items bundJed into those minutes that
identified the Tram Station #8 parking lot, ingress and egress into the lnt, and he mentioned the crosswalk there. He
recognized that the Services Division Board is addressing these issues now but "fast forward to a year from now, if
we had not taken any action, then we are not doing our job."
Mr. Dallas said that he did agree with Mr. Grnvenhorst, but that the Services Division cannot address the
safety issues by employing the most costly solution and that it would be wise to start ont at with a less costly
solution and if that does uot work, to go to the next alternative solution.
8151
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
Chairwoman Womble acknowledged that there is a lot of concern about safety and the Strategic Planning
161h A18
Committee is addressing those issues first; safety is a major priority.
Mr. Gravenhorst said that community planners identified safety issues two years ago and from what he
understood, the Board was going to wait to address those issues until another survey is completed.
Chairwoman Womble said that the Board is not waiting and using the thermoplastic striping to resolve the
safety issue at the Trnm Smtion #8 crosswalk.
Mr. Graveuborst agreed that they were resolving the problem with restriping bnt that the Board did not
approve the project that was originally proposed, Le., the $33,000 project to install signals at the crosswalk
Chairwoman Womble said, "yes, at this point." She encournged the Board members to express their views
on this matter.
Mr. Cravens said that where lights were installed at Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard crosswalk there is one-
fifth of the pedestrian l1affic. The place to address pedestrian safety is the crosswalk at Trnm Station #8. He said
that he believes that crosswalk had the signals installed was in response to community pressure of residents that live
nearby.
Chairwoman Womble said that she has observed the pedestrian intersection at Myra Janco Daniels
Boulevard at different times of the day and it depends upon events happening at 81. Williams, Le., Saturday evening
Mass, and the use of that parking Int to go to the Philharmonic. She said that she bas received a lot of positive
feedhack from the community expressing that they were less afraid to walk across the highway and are very
appreciative for that project.
Mr. Gravenhorst said that Chairwoman Womble just stated his case and the reason to do the same type of
project at the crosswalk at Trnm Smtiou #8.
Chairwoman Womble responded that the Services Division has budgetary restrictions and are trying to do
something "and not get ahead of ourselves."
OLD BUSINESS
DISCUSSION OF VIDEO RECORDING SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MEETINGS TO
TELEVISE ON FOUNDATION ACCESS CHANNEL 95
Mr. Crnvens said that he was the one to bring up the subject of video recording the Board meetings and
televise them on the Foundation's access cbaonel 95. He said that he had discussed this with Mr. Hoppensteadt who
8152
" .
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
16 Ii 1 A 18
gave his approval to televise the meetings on the Foundation's access channel 95, similar to the way Foundation
Board meetings are shown.
Mr. laizzo asked Mr. Cravens if there was a cost involved.
Mr. Cravens responded that the cost involved would be for purchasing eqnipment: a video recorder, tripod
and tapes for it and estimated the total cost would be $400.
Mr. laizzo asked who was going to do the job and how much that would cost.
Mr. Cravens responded that Ms. Resnick had experience in filming and indicated interest Mr. Cravens
also has made videos and referred to recording the Men's Coffee using the mini DV format In addition, that Blue
Sky gave their stamp of approval to use the mini DV fonnat and Blue Sky has used his recordings. This would be an
in house operation. The only other consideratiou was to place a microphoue for optimal audio. He said that the
reason he made the suggestion was to give the Board positive exposure to the community.
Mr. Iaizw said that was a tough call and questioned if there was an audience.
Several Board members made light of the thought of broadcasting in the middle of the night and that there
probably would not be much interest.
Mr. Levy said that he would never watch the meetings.
There seemed to be a geueral cousensus by the Board of lighthearted amusement and non-interest
Chairwoman Womble asked for suggestions from staff.
Staff had no suggestions.
Mr. Cravens made a motion to video record the Board meetings and broadcast on the Foundation's access
channel 95.
There was no second to the motion.
Chairwoman Womble said the item wonld be tabled to readdress later, possibly when season gets
underway.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business, but Mr. Moffiltt requested from the Chairwoman if the next Board meeting can
be rescheduled for September 9,2009 from SePtember 2,2009.
Chairwoman Womble stated that September 9 was the day before the Commissioner's Budget Hearing and
the Services Division bndget goes before the Commissioners.
8153
" ,
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
16 It"'! A 18
Mr. Gravenhorst made a motion to move the next meeting from September 2 to September 9.
Mr. Moffatt seconded the motion.
Chairwoman Womble asked for discussion and stated that she was unable to attend the September 9, 2009
meeting for a prior scheduled vacation.
Mr. Moffatt asked if the meeting had to be on a Wednesday.
Mr. Dorrill said that he was unavailable on the third Wednesday of each month.
Chairwoman Womble took a poll of who would not be able to attend the September 2 meeting.
Mr. Moffatt was the lone member present unavailable on 9/2/09.
Chairwoman Womble asked if Mr. Moffatt would be available by teleconference.
Mr. Moffatt responded maybe.
Mr. Crnvens said that an effort should be made for Board members unable to be present to participate by
teleconference. From what he understood after speaking with Mr. Dorrill, that as long as a physical quorum was
present that those who call in by phone can vnte and participate in the meeting.
There was some back and forth between Board members as to whether the teleconference member's vote
"counts" based on the County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko that the member participating via teleconference that
their vote does uot count
Mr. Crnvens asked Mr. Dorrill for clarification.
Mr. Dorrill responded that from his uuderstanding that there is an Attorney General's opinion regarding
participation and voting by telephone and that a physical quorum be present and that telephone participants can vote.
Mr. Levy said that the reason their vote does DOt count is because there is uo way to identify positively that
the person on the phone is really the Board member.
Chairwoman Womble said that according to Ms. Ashton-Cicko they can vote but the vote does not count
She said that she was aware that the Commissioners had voting members via telephone at their last meeting and that
those Commissioner's votes did count, bot is not sure how that worked.
Mr. Dorrill said that staffwould look into the Attorney General's opinion and provide that information to
the Board.
Doe to the Chair being unable to attend a rescheduled Board meeting on 9/9/09, Mr. Gravenhorst withdrew
his motion.
8154
1611
A18
, , .
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
Chairwoman Womble suggested that ifhe is available that Mr. Moffutt participate by teleconference, but
that he was also entitled to a vacation.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mrs. Marcia Cravens said that she was concerned with the inter-local agreement terminology. She said that
an inter-local agreement is a service agreement that has a certain connotation in Florida Statute and does not believe
it to be a proper term for an agreement between the Services Division and the Foundation. "It is meant to be an
agreement," she said, "for instance I believe there is an existing inter-local agreement already between the Pelican
Bay Services Division and the Commissioners and that is the 2006-05 Ordinance and the two letters of
Understanding Memorandum that are companion documents; they constitute an inter-local service agreement"
Chairwoman Womble agreed that was one type of inter-local service agreement.
Mrs. Cravens continued that inter-local agreements are between local governments and MSW's
(Municipal Services Taxing UDit,) MSBU's (Municipal Services Benefit Unit,) special districts, and the like. She
requested that the Board and Mr. Dorrill to consider not titling the agreement as an inter-local agreement.
Mrs. Cravens second concern was regarding summary ntinutes. She said that summary minutes are
"completely useless" and gave examples of other advisory committees, i.e., the Coastal Advisory Committee and
Clam Bay Advisory Committee. She said, "you cannot determine who said what, they are very deficient in what
was actnaIly said, and they are no good for any kind of a legal argument or if in fact you need to bring something
back for reconsiderntion, you have to have verbatim miontes and if yon do not have vCIbatim minntes available, then
yon will have to pay to have them made. I am very familiar with the various kinds of minutes and I would strongly
urge this Board to do so. Also, yon may not be aware that your 2006415 Ordinance indicates that yon are required to
keep detailed records of your actions on this Board. I do not believe a summary situation does that."
Chairwoman Womble responded that she believes a digital record is.
Mrs. Cravens responded, "there are no digital records on Collier County's site. I deal with the
Communications department all the time and I deal with the BMR (Board Minutes and Records) frequently. Either
you have an audio cassette of the minntes or you have a video record of the minutes, or yon have a written
document Those are what are available."
Chairwoman Womble stated that the Services Division does have a digital record of the minutes.
Mrs. Crnvens said, "that is not a digital" record, referring to the sununary minntes.
8155
'I , \ .
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
16 Ilr'~' A 18
Chairwoman Womble followed, also referring to the summary miDDles document that although the
summary minutes were not digital "we do bave the minutes right here."
Mrs. Cravens responded, "you cannot use those when you are discussing something in an official capacity.
Yon have to have verbatim minutes to bring something back for reconsideration or to debate something."
Mrs. Cravens had another concern regarding the Budget and asked if there had been any changes to the
budget since the May 8, 2009 budget document provided to the public.
Mr. Levy said that there were revisions distribnted at the May meeting.
Mr. Moffatt said that the bndget was approved on June II at this Board's meeting and there were changes
included in that meeting from the County that were approved.
Chairwoman Womble asked Mrs. Cravens what was the date of the document she had with her.
Mrs. Crnvens responded May 8, 2009.
Chairwoman Womble said that there were changes between May 8 and the one approved on June II.
Mr. Iaizw asked Mrs. Cravens if she wanted to know exactly bow monies were spent
Mrs. Crnvens said that she was concerned about the Clam Bay bndget
Mr. Iaizw said that if she wanted to know exactly how monies were spent she wonld bave to get that
information from the aerie's Finance department.
Mrs. Cravens said that the bndget goes before the Commissioners in September and it is supposed to
include an opportunity for residents and members of the MSI'BU to comment, but bow can she comment if she does
not have the information. She specifically said that she wanted to know not only how monies were spent from
Fiscal Year 2009 but also how the money is detailed to be spent in Fiscal Year 2010 because the document that she
has is showing $158,000 in Tourist Development Council (!DC) fimds and she questioned the me funds because
she said that those funds are normally only provided to the Services Division when dredging bas occurred. She
further explained that it is only when dredging bas occurred producing beach quality sand that is pot on the beaches.
She said that the last time the Services Division received roc funds the amount was $11,000 to reimburse for
dredging and sand placement She stated, "So, I want to know what this $158,000 is."
Mr. Levy said that it was Fund III money.
Mrs. Crnvens said that she disagreed. She said that she was looking at "Clam Bay Restorntion Program and
it says from me, $158,200."
8156
~-iti---- --- --
. .. , ..
Pelican Bay Services Division Summary Meeting Minutes
August 5, 2009
16111
A18
Mr. Moffatt assured that the final approved proposed bndget does not include anything from the roc and
that replacement pages were distributed at that meeting and that staff could provide to her.
Mrs. Cravens conveyed that she wanted the correct budget information, the official document.
Mr. Moffatt said that it is the May bndget brought to the Services Division Board for approval and the
subsequent changes ordered by the County.
Mrs. Crnvens asked, "CouJd we make sure that information is going to be included in the bndget that goes
before the Commissioners becanse John Petty did not always do what he was supposed to do."
Mr. Levy said the COmmissioners do not receive that budget book, they receive something else.
Mrs. Cravens said that what they receive is supposed to reflect what the Board approved and asked if it was
detailed with Fund numbers.
Mr. laizw stated that she had every right to have that information and to request from the Clerk's Finance.
Mrs. Crnvens stated that she wanted the proposed Fiscal Year 2010 budget before the Commissioners
Bndget Hearing, before the time to comment, and before the Budget is approved.
Mr. Levy said that she should go to the Services Division office to get the up-to-date budget document.
Chairwoman Womble stated that Mrs. Cravens speaking time was up and asked for a motion to adjourn.
AD.JOURNMENT
Mr. Moffatt made a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Iaizzo seconded the motion.
The Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 3:42 p.rn
Mr. Moffatt made a nwtUm to adjOllnt. Mr. laiwI seconded the motion. The Board
voted UlJanimously to a4jOllm the meeting at 3:42 p.m.
~
~,
e Wombl , Chairwoman
SUmmary Minutes prepared by Usa Resnick on August 27, 2009
8157
.
Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U.
Advisory Committee
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples FL 34104
September 15,2009
AGENDA
I. Call Meeting to Order
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes: August 25, 2009
V. Transportation Services Report
A. Budget Report- Caroline Soto
B. Project Manager Report - Danyl Richard
VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - Hannula
VII. Landscape Architects Report
A. McGee & Assoc.
B. Windham Studios
VIII. Old Business
IX. New Business
X. Committee Member Comments
XI. Public Comments
XII. Adjournment
. c,c The next meeting is October 20, 20093:30 p.m.
CC Transportation Bldg.
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
1611~
A19
Copies to:
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
"
,
Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U.
Advisory Committee
z885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples FL 34'04
16 I 1 Rtibll~ED V
SEP 2 1 2009
Board of County Commissioners
August 25, 2009
,C-<
Minutes
he meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 3:36 PM.
II.
ATTENDANCE
Members: Dale Lewis, Betty Schudel, Bill Jaeger, Helen Carella, John Weber
County: Darryl Richard-Project Manager, Tessie Sillery-Operations
Coordinator, Caroline Soto-Budget Analyst, Michelle Amold-A TM Director,
Pam Lulich-Landscape Operations Manager
Others: Mike McGe~McGee & Associates, James Stephens-Hannula
Landscaping, Scott Windham-Windham Studios, Darlene Lafferty-Mancan, Brad
Donnelly-Public, Jim Capazzi-Public
III.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Change: VII Landscape Architects Report
VII A. McGee & Associates
Add: VII B. Windham Studios
Betty Schudel nwved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Helen
Carella. Motion carried unaninwusly 5-0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Julv 21. 2009
Change: Pg. 4, V. C, Paragraph 6, should read: The Committee was "in"
agreement that the Design Plans were a good concept and if necessary
"they" miry be installed in phases depending on Project Cost.
John Weber nwved to approve the July 21,2009 minutes as amended. Second
by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unaninwusly 5-0.
V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT:
A. Budget Report-Caroline Soto reviewed the following: (See attached)
o Operating Expense actual expenditures $98,456.
o Available Improvements General $757,857.95
o FYlO Millage Rate adjustment will be available at the September 15,2009
meeting
B. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard distributed and the following
information was given: (See attached) . Corres'
. (R-23) Painting the median bull-nose with numbers MISC. .
Oete:
ltemt:
1
Copies to:
1611A19
>> Trutwin Industries quote ($850.00) for 2 sets of median numbers
(Radio Rd and Devonshire) was submitted (See attached)
Dale Lewis moved to accept the (Trutwin Industries) bid in the amount of
$850.00. Second by Betty Schudel. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
· (R-22) Devonshire Shrub Refurbishment
>> Recommended postponement of planting the Viburnum Shrubs
pending results from the Hedge Pilot Program (North side of
Belleview and Santa Barbara)
>> Mike McGee suggested utilizing the monies ($8,700.00) for new
hedge installation in the next section
Discussions ensued concerning a Homeowners ficus hedge located in the
easement area. After much discussion it was concluded the ficus hedge
will remain with the Homeowner continuing to maintain his hedge.
Additionally the MSTU will maintain the remaining Viburnwn along the
roadway.
Betty Schudel volunteered to coordinate a meeting with the Homeowner,
Staff, and Mike McGee to confirm the Homeowners intentions on
maintaining his ficus hedge.
. (R-21) Devonshire Sprav Irrigation Refurbishment
Betty Schudel was requested to have the Homeowner of 200 Henley Dr.
contact Staff to discuss painted lines (by the homeowner) over located
telephone lines.
>> Executive Summary recommendation to award Bid #09-5244 to
Hannula was reviewed (See attached)
>> Hannula Landscaping was the lowest qualified bidder $172,810.70
>> BCC approval is required
>> Construction timeline the Sorav IrriJ!ation Refurbishment
- BCC approval 9-15-09
- 60 days for Contract processing
- NTP 11-15-09
90 day construction-Completion 2-12-10
- 30 days for punch list
- Contractor Penalty clause ($700 per day) if not complete
- ROW Permit was issued
Dale Lewis moved to accept the bid (Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation) in
the amount of $172,81 0.70. Second by John Weber. Motion carried
unanimously 5-0.
It was stated by Staff the median nwnber painting (Radio Rd. and
Devonshire) will be complete within 30 days.
VI. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT -Hannula
Jim Stephens reported ongoing maintenance is being performed.
2
16 J '1
A19
VII. LANDSCAPE ARCIDTECH REPORT
A. McGee & Associates - Mike McGee reported:
-9- Advised Hannula of weeds in the median beds
-9- Warranty Tree replanting-Incomplete
Dale Lewis emphasized the importance of the Warranty Tree replanting.
-9- Tree pruning on Devonshire is required
-9- Glen Eagle requested the hedge height (by the pump station) be lowered
-9- Bougainvillea pruning-Complete
B. Windham Studios
Scott Windham reviewed the Status Report and gave additional information:
(See attached)
. ABB: Curbing Design
)) 60% Curb Construction Plans have been reviewed by TECM
)) Minor changes will be incorporated into the 100% plans at the end
of September
Dale Lewis questioned if additional cost (MSTU) will be incurred due to the
requested changes by TECM for a directional turn lane.
Scott Windham responded a directional turn lane (at Ester) to prohibit cross
access is necessary for human safety.
After much discussion the curb linear footage may remain the same.
. Abnev and Associates: Irri~ation Design
)) Existing Irrigation Main line is intact andfimctional
)) 90% of the Irrigation Main lines can be utilized
)) Existing pump can be used
>> Only modification required is to consumptive use
. WSI: Planting Design
)) Cost estimates were reviewed (See attached)
)) Plant Materials $139,366.50
)) Irrigation Materials $144,250.00
- Line Item (3) $37,600.00 -3 inch PVC gasket main line will be
removed
)) ABB-Curb and Lane Construction $485,387.00
)) ABB-Ester St. turn lane Construction $34,291.00
After much discussion it was concluded it beneficial to move expeditiously on
the curbing construction in order to lock into current concrete pricing.
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
It was clarified 2 Committee Members will attend the following meetings:
. PAC (Pathways Advisory Committee)
. TAC (Technical Advisory Committee)
. CAC (Citizen Advisory Committee)
IX. NEW BUSINESS-None
3
1611
A19
X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS-None
XI. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Brad Donnelly, Devonshire resident thanked the Committee for providing the
visual image on the hedge relocation.
There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting
was adjourned at 4:59 P.M.
Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee
fj)~J ~
Dale Lewis, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Committee on ---9 -. is -U ~
as presented or amended A .
The next meeting is September 15,2009 at 3:30 p.m.
CC Transportation Building
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
4
1611
A19
Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U.
. AdvillOry Committee
2705 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples FL 34104
SUMMARY OF MINUTES & MOTIONS
August 25, 2009
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Change: VII Landscape Architects Report
VII A. McGee & Associates
Add: VII B. Windham Studios
Betty Schudel moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Helen
Carella. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Julv 21. 2009
Change: Pg. 4, V. C, Paragraph 6, should read: The Committee was "in"
agreement that the Design Plans were a good concept and if necessary
"they" may be installed in phases depending on Project Cost.
John Weber moved to approve the July 21, 2009 minutes as amended. Second
by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT:
B. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard reviewed the Trutwin Industries
quote ($850.00) for 2 sets of median number on Radio Rd. and Devonshire.
Dale Lewis moved to accept the (Trutwin Industries) bid in the amount of
$850.00. Second by Betty SchudeL Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
Darryl Richard reviewed the Executive Summary recommendation to award Bid
#09-5244 to Hannula in the amount of$I72,81O.70
Dale Lewis moved to accept this bid (Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation) in the
amount of $172,81 0.70. Second by John Weber. Motion carried unanimously
5-0.
16 I ["
tet~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m~m~~w~
~~i~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~@~~~m~~~ i~ii~~~~~5~~
~~~mm~~~<.~C~~OOZ~ImAZ>~~~~nnmm ~~~~~~~~~~~~
mm~~~~b2~~~~~OmQ~ ~~Qz>o~n>~mm ;m~~~~m~~~<<
~n~~0~~mgm~~~>>m z~~~~~B~~8~~ 0~~~~~0~Z~~~
~izZ ~~~~~ffi~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~zoo0Q ~~~~~~~~~o~~
80~~ ~~~~z~~~~~~ >~~Z~ cnQ~~~ n~~~~~~~84Z~~
z~n~ z mZ0oZZ~",~ zm ~m ~40mmm ~>C:~I~Z4~
4 o~ 0 z000-mQ~_- o~ >~ oocm-oooo ZQO>~ I 4>~
Z o~ 0 mmc~g ~~~ oo~, ~~~S ~~m~x~~mrnmx~
Q ,- ~ ~ ~ooo 00-00 ~~ OO~CI i ~~~8~m~4~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~I ~ ~z m ~m 0, 0 00
o O~ ~ ffim z~ ~< ~~ C",~~['J ~-<
~ -<0 oo~ Gz ~
~ )>?) ~
:::0 m Z m Z )>-l
o Q C/) -l ~~
~WMW_WW~wwwww~w~w~~w~ww~~
.i:-
~~O~N~~~N~ _~ N ~oo-
~~8~~~~i~~g~~8@8@~~~
8888888a~18888888888
'"
n8
888
....
w
~
<oro
~ '"
~ w
~ ~
o ~
8o~~
",1i1"'~
ocs8o
8888
~.~~~~~---~----------~
utl
~~~
N N
Cn~
~o
~w
roo
"'~
N
<0
w
o
ro
~
,.
~
~
'"
0',
,.
~~~~~~~_M_~M~M~~M~~~MM~M~MM~M~
w
~
fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA
J\JJ\,);:~CD
CD01NWWNJ\,)CD .j:>.1\J
~~~'8-<'8-..j~15~.....2:J&;o
wa:.-...l ..........5NNO> (0
~~g8g~.~~i8~~~
~
"
11:
"
'"
'" ..
"'..'"
(No>:'l
~~~
fA fA fA fA fA fAfA_fA_fAfAfAfAfAfAfAfAfAfA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA
'"
-<
~
'"
w~w
(0 c..:. -"'-I
~ 0
-<~o
wwo
-<roo
"".f>o..........
20-""''"a1C;;
cs8~C:;f\.J
88::tJ'e
-<-<
~~~ 011\) N COO1_0S;; ."'"
~~t~~~~801oo808~A08
~-..jN-...lcoooo888o O>N N
S~t~~8~888~8~~~8~
::E~cn1JZS:S:S:3:S::J
-.-.c:aQl(') (')nnllll/'l
5. 5.;a. CIl '2.~ 'fJ3 co co :J C
::T?,"2g1]roroHlffi@@
Ql... Ill...... :J:J
33.....&lOQoQo"""" @
CIJ(J)'5: 2:!.J:>::t>>G:' G)
....._gjO-<CIl({)~!l!
~~ ~~ggxo ~
o 0 ~ "
o I
c..
_. 0
~ E
nO)
o r
" .
_ 0
~:;;
~ 0
3" ~
~ :)
on
i ~
i ij
H
..,.
"''''0
00-'
OO~
00
~~~
~ t-<
BB
""
-f>..~8;
g~~
"'00
row",
~NW
roNW
"'~'"
....,.
~~~
000
ace;
"'~o
W-<~
~~w
....f>o..f>o..f>o.
01 gU'l 01
8:1~~
g~5:8
~(j~~
"'~'"
~q
II i i
! ~
· iii
. I ~
Ln
~ i
~
iii
.
iii
-< -<
r r
00
i: ~
)> )>
w w
~ ~
.. ,.
66
6 sn
W ~
(l)fAEAtAfAiA
A .1 ~
.. - ~ (
- ;;
co
~ 8 ~ CD
0 0 a.
~ ~
~
"
.......... J
3
;0:
3
CD
"
~
..
fAY1fAfAMfAfAMMfA
w_
W~
O:lN
:I'~
ro '"
-:;~
II
. .
o 0
o 0
c c
Q)"Q)
1>>1>>
o 0
c.c.
n
'C'C
S" S'
"''''
II
. .
o 0
o 0
c c
iilQj
1>>1>>
o 0
c.c.
" "
@ @
'C'C
S'S'
"''''
";j1:!J !!~g
;:g ro Q g. Q, 3
_~ ~ III ~ a: 3
'<. :J '" - al 3 :=
::u c5,]. S:Iii"::S
al III Q) Q) - g.
g g.g~!;~
@ :J:J <g 5. ~
rJl ~ ~
i?
:?
"-
.. ..
g:1J9.g:
~ ~ ~ ~
OQ,~o
CJl:J "tI.....
.....<0 Ql.l:>-
~ '< tl
~.s>..s>. .s>.
CJlCJlg: CJl
~~:1Gl~b
~~8()g.
.l:>-I'VCXl CXl
I'VCXle,..l U1
lDe,..llD U1
zz
j;j;
giiltil iil
o,~~z~z
g j; >
-+:>'::0::0 ::0
00
'l'l"z
~g:>
~'"
~'"
~
ii1 ~iil",
~ ~ ~ -.
'" W ~ It
O~ro
,.
00 0
GDGDzGDz
~ 8CJl > g: >
'" '"
o '"
000
ro"''I'
~~~
~~j
~~
w w
o 0
c.c.
-<~~
~1616
~~Qo
n ,-
r ~~.
S' <1l Ql
~>l~
" c 0
t:,,~
~ ~~.
~~"rg
o
O"tl,rrr-r-
<~~~~~~
::og.QlQ.Q.a.a.
o Ql :; (J1 \!l ~
~ [rjl a. Q OJ ~ @
(flQoti5~~~~
0~l;-!<l>1;'
~ (b 0 0 n n
<" 3 ~ ~ ;!.;!.
~~~~aa
c c:: c c:
sa. ~~iiliil
"
~
E;
~.
W~QS1h;"~
~ c: c: i:\l a a
~~~~@@
~@g>[;-g-g
~" ~
rn ~
"
ro
'"
~
I
,,-
"'
!'l
6
o
l:Wfblfbl
E < ~ ~
!'l
-i(j)m~'Tl"tl"'''tIb;'
ii3 a: i'P c: ~ 3 r.5" 8.:J
(b ~ ~ g: =--0 ~ c.!t
::0 !il is: 9l::o 0" 3 ~
~ "-< -. C1l :J Qo-g
~ ::0 ~ ~
~ ~ @ n'
~" 3.g
~ ~
;a g
~
Q'
if
3
3
!!
5.
'"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.. ..
'" ~
SI'l:'"
"'~O
"'ww
"'~~
N
'"
o
o
o
o
..
~
o
"
o
.'" W
Cflbg~
~-<w
oCono
ooN
..
'"
-<
~
'"
~
~
~
3
w
5'
5'
~
<0
W~
~~
'"
'"
o
o
o
~
..
~
'"
'"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
'" c
w .. ~ W .. .. .. !!!.
o..~ ~ '" ~ wo ro ~ '" '" -0
Coow ~'t: " 'w '" .. --...to ~ ~ ill '8 .~ 'w '" " w
gCXl-...t..... iil", :;: ,"ill ro '" :5 ro 0 :5 '" ..w c:
"''''N ~ :: '" ~ '" -< ~ ~ W "'0
$&lioill ;;;8 w 8~ <0 8 8 '" " " '" 8 " :...,.:.....
~ ro .. ro ~ 0 .. 0 ~ ~ "''''
~ .~
Zo.s>.N~
-...tCXle,..lo)
1il';<::iJ:
"
~
iil
'C
o
"
m
"
~ ~
e: t:
~ ..
C -
~
~
..
-
~'"
"'~
-<-<
0:"'"
~.::!
~
a!'
!.~
iD
)>
c:
CQ
c:
'"
-
'"
pt
'"
c
c
CD
~
c
"'0
C:;:c
Zo
c)>
~c
"'3:
CII
-l
c:
16 I ~1
A19
August 25, 2009
Prepared by:
Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes
Tessie SiIlery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes
Radio Road MSTU Proiect ReDort
(R-23) - Painting the median bull-nose with numbers
8-25-09: Trutwin quote for $850.00 to be reviewed/approval required by Committee
(R-22) - 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 contrnct 09-5ll1R rates: $8,700.00;
8-25-09: Drip Irrigation is installed; Staff and Consultant to review new proposed plantings.
(R-21) - DEVONSHIRE (Belville to Santa Barbara) Spray Irrigation REFURBISHMENT;
7-21-09: Proposal is submitted for Committee review to install irrigation and shrubs (Clusia); Total project
cost estimated based 09-511IR: $16,964.80
8-25-09: Adjusted home-owner's irrigation; McGee to inspect/approve locations for new irrigation;
Irrigation parts in stock.
(R-18) - RADIO ROAD Phase 3 Project (Livingston Rd. to Airport Pulling; Windham Studios (PO
4500 I 05824)
8-25-09: 60% Submittal plans under review.
(R-15) - RADIO ROAD PHASE H-B & Phase I-A (II-B is from Kings Way/Briarwood Entry to Tina
Lane); (I-A is from Devonshire to Santa Barbara)
8-25-09: BCC approval on September 15, 2009 for award to Harmula Landscape
(R-19) - New Maintenance Consulting Contract - McGee to June 30, 2009; PO 4500104739
8-25-09: On going Maintennace Consulting Services from McGee & Associates; LA Services Contract to
be reviewed in the Fall for BVO or rotation per 'agreement letter' with Radio Road MSTU.
(R-14) - MAINTENCE CONTRACT - BID# 09-511IR -- "Radio Road Beautification MSTDIMSTU
Roadway Grounds Maintenance"
8-25-09: Harmula for maintenance - Ongoing.
1
16 11 A 19
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to award Bid #09-5244 "Radio Road Landscape & Irrigation
Project Phases lIB & IA" to Hannula Landscape & Irrigation, Inc. in the amount of
$172,810.70
OBJECTIVE: Award Bid #09-5244 "Radio Road Landscape & Irrigation Project
Phases lIB & IA" to Hannula Landscape & Irrigation, Inc.
CONSIDERATIONS: On June 22, 2009, the Purchasing Department posted bid for the
"Radio Road Landscape & Irrigation Project Phases lIB & IA". Four hundred twenty
three (423) notices were sent to vendors and fifty seven (57) vendors downloaded the bid
information. On July 8, 2009 a mandatory pre-bid was held. On July 23, 2009, seven (7)
bids were received and opened.
On June 16,2009 in advance of the July 23, 2009 bid opening, the Radio Road MSTU
Committee voted unanimously to appropriate $340,000 for the award to staff determined
lowest, qualified, responsive bidder. See attached for minutes of June 16, 2009 Radio
Road MSTU Meeting.
Staff reviewed the unit pricing and recommends awarding the Bid #09-5228 to the
apparent, lowest, qualified bidder, Hannula Landscape & Irrigation, Inc. in the amount of
$172,810.70
Vendor Amount
Stahlman-England Irrigation $185,962.11
Superior Landscaping & Lawn Service, Inc. $221,333.28
Arazoza Brothers Corp. $270,105.51
Vila & Son Landscaping Corp. $191,666.43
Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation Inc $172,810.70
Vally Crest Landscape - South Florida $210,289.65
Big Tree, Inc. $298,132.29
FISCAL IMPACT: Budget is available within Radio Road MSTU Fund 158. Upon
completion, this project will be maintained through Fund 111 Cost Center 163835 and
require estimated annual budget expenditure of $55,200 for operation, maintenance and
life cycle replacement
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact
associated with this Executive Summary.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners award Bid #09-
5244 to Hannula Landscape & Irrigation, Inc. for "Radio Road Landscape & Irrigation
Project Phases lIB & IA" in the amount of $172,810.70 and authorize its Chairman to
execute the standard contract after review by the County Attorney's Office; and direct
1611
staff to include the operations, maintenance and life cycle replacement cost as a line item
in the annual budget review following the completion of the project.
Prepared By: Darryl Richard, RLA, Project Manager, ATM Department
Attachments: Bid Tab #09-5244; June 16,2009 minutes
A19
.
~
t
.~
"~
is,,,
!j%
> ~ '
i~~
~. ~ ~
" "
:': 'i:i 1
] j ,
:: "I
,'"
5 8 ~
z"
~
1
88; 88lC1!:lS:::I!nll!!:'S:'S
.~,,,.;.,,--"~.,,.
-.. '" "'.... 0;'; i:I. '" .....
S::::t ~~:J",'",~;:,::::,,,,~::-
i.... "'......... "'''' '"
!a~8;8;8;~~~:!!~~l2;::P~
"it:;.at:;.~....a~g",a*~a
~
-
~
.
'i
~.!
J
.
:j~::n:~Jl:8;~!::lC:2[;l
g . . ...l"':.. . si 51:;;i,.;"
!i..5~~:tl"'~~""N"'~~
o...."'.......n::}...........................;:;-
.. ..............- .... .....
::I:; a:o: i:;:I; 'I ~:!; :J lC::: s;
_8~"': ~".:,.; d.. cia";"';"; ai
if .... "',....,,,....,, ~~.x:;::
~
-
8r;!I~~~~~~pp;~~~ ~
~ -g$m~!::~~~:::~~~~ ..
~ g~m""~~~~~;:.~~.x~ ~
"& ~ .. ............. .... '" -.
j-
~f 8~lilliil:J:~.;j:!'ls::n~:lg 8
l!I~~~~~~ggg~~aa &
! !
~
.
g:::::J:lilt::i&8B:~:3::g~:'S
-"i'''''''.--..'..
p_\D" !1)........ ...;z;"'....'"
1'1...... "t................~......
l.~~ N.."~~~N"~~
i.... ...............' ........
.
i ...~:gij!;8::::;$l::::l!lr;::*~;::
~ ,,:i.-l ai N"; .:.. . '", d cri on
..~...."'........"'a"'agi6..."'N
.liD- .................
.~
-
,
"
i
,
l
.,
~
.
1
"
]
,
.
'i'
.
.
.
8888lCll:8:ii::a8S88
.,,~~~~~~.~~~~~~
Bo.....1ll-...."'..;..;.tl"'.......;-....."'....
f...::: ".:...
I.""....~..-..;-
I<7i-....."''''''''''-.........~.,],.N.;;t
'.
. .
-
5l:ci:::U;;:~2:f"'8888
~ '.."".""~"...
~ ia~a~~~~a!3S~~
l.i"" '" '" "'......
I . "
]ifi~;~~~~~~~~~~~
5 ~"'''''''''''''''''''~~~.N~
1. i ,:: "'''''''
.
s:e::Ql:;:lQl;J8;;::~i:ai~
1l!~~~5~&aEE~!!!~:;;
i li"'''''''...,-'''.''''''.....'''''':l'''$
~ "" ..... '" '" ,. ....
t
I ~:;:;~ro:xro..,l!lg:a~~:;
.::l .,.;"':...;...; c:i::J. ci c:i...:...:...: ,.,
j]it~...."""'...."''''.....'''''''''N~
~ i '" ...."''''
il-
0........... <J>..::l~"'~
&"""'...g:;~.,.ro::? ......
.
:!i.:.:.:.:c2~~~~.:.:.:.:
01 Xl i! u
t l e~ j~~ i
~ -' iI. H l~
~ ~ 1! ,S Q. Q. Q."!il ;1
.. I""!. ".
~i~f" ,~~~...~.1
2 e 2 ~ ~ i 8 ... JI
-~ ~ 'i:~g';:r~~f;lo::
!fii2~i~'!1n~j~]
~f.8a~~~~~~~~ t:~Jl
..~....""."'........._N .
~ "'''''''''''''1('>.''' '" "'''' '"
.
~
~~~~~U.'~
~~~!Hj3:1l~~'1
"'~d"'~"'~.....ij
.
a
:ll:;~:;O::lSS1ll8
...'""!..
...~........"'''' 'l5~
.;;:..........'" ""m
~
~
:iH~~~~:ii:~ii!;;P~
i!~~~H!~!HH!l
....."''''.......,-''''''....'''':0
........... '" a
.
a
<> ~... ""....:l! "'.. ~
;~~~~~ci~2!
~"""''''' 1::i~lI(
'" """''''
888Sl888882
a~~~~~!::i~s
"';i;i d'" ....~~
~
8:7:2128:7:888
~:i~a:id!5~
~ .~
.
~
g88:;::S:i:g::::~,~
ag~sali;j~~!
.............. ",1
~
.
i
::::l:;;lQ~::l~lSR~
S~~*.i~~a~
~ ~
. ~~8~~~~~~;j
~ aH~~~U~!
g 888888888
a aaa~~~~~~
... "'''':;;":
. 888888888!:!l
~ ~u~u~~~.
" ,;:tm..............."'..."'..f
. ~ N
~ 88888:7:888
2a::;;jg:(d.~I!2~
.(;I. "'''' '"
~~.
.
~
~a~!~~lq5~a
~~!~~=:l!"'1!;Jl:
"'dd ~'" ~"'R
.
a
~.:l!~"i81~lq~~
aa.i.1.~:;:I~a
N~~"'~liil""'''
.;
:l ~ ~.:i ~ ~:l':::.:l
~ ~
.
L ,! j
.5 ~ ~:i! e 00
"]j' ~~
~HJ "Pj .~
~;;qB!i .~
~~~~;Hd ~
:!illl$t;;:sm~~l:!
>- z >- >- >- > > >- Z
>->->->->->->>->-
>->->->->->->->->-
>->->->->->->->->-
>- > z >- >- >- >- >- >-
...... >- >-.... >-........ >-
>-............ >-....... >- >-
,
~ ~
! , ~ '
f 0 ,,!
t11"
~~i~~
-B ~j:i..~
t! ~~~~ ~~-g..
'e !i"'9 '5!l .. l! j 2
E.5.9.::i: ~ ~ II ~
,
~
i.
H
H
..,
"
.
I
09
1611
1
"
!
's
~~~
'So
f.. ~
(! ~
~l~
2'~M
.00
.....-..,
.;.J"" ~
~ I ~
H~
'8.
z,
I
,
88812
i~~~~
. I- ~~ ~
! -
E 8883
l h~~st
.: :;}u:>"'"
.--
,
..c 8 l!: "'I
l ..gd;J
, s::t.."'....
f.--- -
]~ 8l!l~!
J Ho"st
...NNlD
.-.
.--
~ ;.
888:;
. .Ua~
P '0" .
'K. ~ 1-':;;;';: t:l.
j:i
-''Ii 888a
jfl~~ast
:l! ~...'"
.
~
.
rc: ~ 8 ~
n~~stil
r~" "
~ :iI~8~
:isj:.i~:i
!!~~a
~
.
~
t
~
.
i
,
]
.,
'1
;!
~
~
El~~~
-U~!'l
':~~~.:;i~
I 888:
iIU~~
S~t:t,,;~
i 888m
, ..U~~.
. 5"'''''''0
{5..."'.... t:l.
I'
:d 888.
i L~~a
. '
888:g
!,'5i~~
.. <=i ~~...;""
:;......."""";.;:
.
.
.::i 8SS:!::
H~~~~
Z~.?I..?I.':;;
~,
........s
g ~
.
<="';..-1"''':
=..J..J..JW'i
8~8888888888888 88a~:888~8~re~
~~~~~!~~~~~~Ea~~~~~m~~~~~~aa~
....~;.;:.?I.t:t~~~a~~........~~ ~~aa~&~~~;.;:~a~
sa;S888888888888
~~~~~~~~~~ri:t.i:;;a
..... .....",...,........."".......
888iQ::e,s;:8~:!l8:SGl~
.t:iJiZ(.i~~~&gs:*~a
~'"
~
1: -.. c ~.il ~ :!: :s
!~!!~ J on ~ I, :;~ ~ j
~ ~~ fi !~.. ~ E"'=; "2 -!Ii ~ j~ ~
ij~ .~~~~i~~~~ ~~;~l~~:~= ~ i~~~: i~ ~
.~;ji'!~..lt 'i~1~~i'.I, .~, ! ~i-~o~'~~~'.!jl
"a.. ElI- -~i..!!l!!j51.1l:!" ~.t: ;:I;"'>~
i~..! ~ ,,~~iJ.l!! ~JI~~ c :!E'<:~ "'j JI.loI lic~r::I~:s!2:ll
~"'~!'.i.tg '~.1~';. .i~i, g!!o.,~;~~.~
<L~~~~5~o2~~~ >~f~ ~<L ~~~~~ ~ >~~~~~~~
...... '" "',... '" "" c.. '" "'''' '" "'..... '" .. N "'... "'.,...... en. ... '" '" ..
j .................... .............. "'.... '" '" '" "'....,., '" '"
~:t::t:~:8S::il;jlC:&::liJi8~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.t~d~~d~:i.ia~"""".id
.~5~!!~"~:~~;~
::::~~8::Hl~!;;a::eSlill!
~:;t aa ~m"" :;L1f~~a ~
~~~~~i;R~:~~~8~"~~~i~S~~~~~~~
n"~d~~~!~~~~~~~ ~~~~nN~~OO~"N
~.."'.."'...'" "''''''''''''''''''''''' ~~""""~~~"""""""'...'"
a""~~~~~ ~~ "" """"""
8~88888888~~R8~ 2~~~~888~8~~~
~~~~~~~~a~~~a~a~~~ffi~a~~~~*~~~
""~.i~~.i""~d~~'" .id ~d~~mm"'.i~~~~d
8 &':88 8 88 8 88 5l;~;:n:::8 5l;
~a~~g&~~~~~r;ir;im::t
'" "".."..,. ................
~~i:ll~88a;~::;::Ij!:gg
.~$i~:;i~~~aaa5i:!;j::!
....., "'........
~~8SS8~~;8R~~~~ ~~~~~8~8~5l;::l;j~
a~~g~a~~~~g~.I...~~~~~~S~~.~~
~.id"'d.i~.i~~'" ~d~~d~~~~~ ~d~~~
~S8~~;~~~~9~~;;~~~~S:~~~:E~~8
.ci~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~~~~ci~~oo.~~~
~aa~a~~~aa~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~a~
8888888888888;88
~~; ~~!U!Ua~~
~~~,X~",gUi~~~~ ~~
888~~888lHI888
~~~~i~~~s~~:7i~
no1::1........""....-"'."'.::l-...."''''
'V'-~"'lX. 'It"'-"',...."'.......,.".
88888888;8888~88 888~~e8~~~88~
~a~~~~~~~~~~a~~.~~~~g*~a~~*~~
~ ~~~~~~~~ ~
~ -
8888888888~~:2~:c
5i5i"~:;:;'~"';.:iH.
~~;j....'" ~~",.;j~:}~ ~~
~~~~..... ~.....~..... ~~
.E1li!li!:::;:E!aa~E!E!E!~
~s~~::.~~~~~:;;:~
riri~~ ~~..... d~~,:C~id
8~~a~~~~a~~:<1~~~
5l"''''lil...''''''..~'''~~~.....~
...~"'.............'"
~ ..........~~..........~~
.~~~~2~88.~2~~~~
.....~.....~.....a~.....<II~:1;.:::.:;:.
8000lilO~"'~"''''~..~'''~:'''~~'''~S8..8'''O~
~a;a~i.i~~~i.;.iia~...~.~~a
....~~~...~~ ~~"'..... ~...q"'~N~~~"~~~
~~da~~.....~~~~~~d~ ~dm~~~""'~~d~~~
8~~~~~~~~~~~~~...~~~~~~~@~E8"'i~
~ag~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~.~~~.~aaa
..... ...............~~.....~~ .....
_..0......,.... "-"'..-o~o.."
~ ...... .. "'~9"'g~..i~~~.. ~ ~=~~
"''''''' .. '"
- ,,"
~b~~jj~~~~~~~~~j~jj~~~jtitijjjj
.
a
.
.;
"
a
.
l
o
~
~
.
.
Ii
8
i
8
~
8
~
"
161--1---A 19
8
S
:!:
8
,;
.i
~PHP;aElE!~~ElE!ElElEl
"':;:~:#Ill~~:ll~8~:G"i
~~~~::1~"'~.~~"'.:Jt5:::,
"'..... .......... ............~ ....
~
,
~
:ili1R~888~;;:88888
~a~a~~~~a~~~~~
<II ....'..... "'''''''
-~
"
~
~
.
~
"
~
,
a
;lI;88~8"lQg;jJ~~;C;!;:
."...il"".....;!
:ll..1~~.::l.;J~::l-~:::'~.:;;~e:
..... ...... ....."'......'"
.
a
o
a
g:~~p:8;:~~iilfll:g...Gi~
;~.'i~~l!'l~$:::i~~at;;;;j
~ "'.....a:;: ......:;::~:;:: .....
"
8
~
~
8gEl~888=i888lQ8
<4si::u;;ldRg8....~gg:;ig
l!!. ..._:;::~~.Il.......~ & ~ ~_* ~~
~:; .::l.v:o:
~
"
a
8
~
8~:ll:a888:;:li:88g~8
:e~~:t.,;Rg~:j::!;!si~l
v:~ .....3;:....... .....:;;:;::~
.
:i
Slg8:!S~~8@f8~~~;:;:$
od,.; . ~ ~... ci ~,,;,..:,,; ,..;.... ~
....ltil"'....~...,"''''f8.....'''c
,i~~~a~ :~...,a~~~
&
~~~::;:;;:;;a~!!:7;~:;l:!:::;
5~<"1a~8!aaa~~~::Ra
'" 0::..... ....."'...,
8
~
~
8888S:88<388El8~8
~UH~U~!H*~
"'l1ih ~':;;~~<I\.$."'''''
"
.
i
8g88888~8888Sl8
~iiiaU~~~aU~~iii
..., ""'~;;j: .........,.....
8
~
8888888~85188i8
~s;i.~R~~~~a~~~~
~~.......,~ ''''~.,;'''''''''''~'''''''''
"'~ "'..... "'...,
8
a
Sl888888:i:g~88lil8
~g~~R!is!styj...gsi~~
...... ...,c;q~ "'~...... ~
'" d:;::"" ................
.
~
11188::<388~~S:Sl:G:G~
~~Hi~U~~U~~~
"'~..... ......~"'~:(;:.~'" '"
.
a
~~;";~88~:a~:g~~:i:
::(~.i~:'!!8!.~~S)!!~g
....... ...... "'''''''.......
'" "';;j: ~...........
.~"""""""""""'O"''''<J>
. ._ _ O~
.. ::3'" ..
.;
.:l'::i::i~jj~::i~~~~~~
~
i
! " ]
~ ~ f OI'~ _ -z
?:i :i~JE ~.. .~~
i] i!~ .~~ ~o
...jtii~l!:~i5i~ji
~ c... 11 Oil :! i " ..! J 01
z >~-ud1!iHi
5&.ii::...~<~~~ 0Ii'~
~:;;lllllli;:;!~:!l1";'~
161!1 A19
1II1WIIIIIIS1RIES,INC. DATE I ESTIMATE
J am.......bn 8/11/2009
hrl1IJI11.I1RI1I_1
ACCT # ESTIMATE # 23106
Please sign & fax
COL-I ATTENTION: TESSIE SILLERY if approved with
Phone # Fax # POC confinnation of
. Contract or P.O.#
JOB NAME .. fOf billing
239.333.4888 239.333,4889 MlKET purposes.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ESTIMATOR RADIO RD MSTU MEDIAN NUMBERS
ATTN:ACCOUNTSPAYABLES If sending a
PO BOX 413016 MPT JOB LOCATION Contract/Purchase
NAPLES, FL 34101-3016 Order.
RADIO RD/NAPLES A copy of our
Estimate is requested.
PLAN DATE: I 8/11/2009 I. IlIDCPMf'tETED ON: .1 8/11/09 1..TRLJTV'i.INJOB# N/A
"LETIER OF COMMENCEMENT" WITH "N.T.O. INFORMATION REQUIRED PRIOR TO STARTING ANY PROJECT.
QTY UNITS ITEM CODE DESCRIPTION UNIT$ TOTAL
RADIO ROAD AND DEVONSHIRE MSTU
PAINTED MARKINGS
35 EA STEN4PB 4" BLACK STENCIUPAINTED ON EACH END OF THE MEDIANS 0.00
30 MEDIANS ON RADIO ROAD
5 MEDIANS ON DEVONSHIRE
1 LS AfrOT AL P... MINIMUM CHARGE TOTAL 850.00 850.00
NOTES; THIS ESITMA TE INCLUDES ONE COAT OF PAINT STENCILED
ONTO THE FACE OF EACH MEDIAN X 2.
A late payment charge shall be imposed not to exceed the maximum allowed by law or 1 1/2% per month, whichever is less. Purchaser agrees to pay Seller all costs and
expenses of collection, suit, or other legal action, including all aetural attorney's and paralegal fees, incurred presuit, through trial, on appeal, or in any administrative
proceedings brought as a result of the commercial relationship between them. Any cause of action which Seller may have against Purchaser may be assigned by Seller to
Trutwin Ind. Inc. or any affiliate thereof without the consent of Purchaser.
Please attach estimate with contract or poJAbove Estimate is based on above plans.
BID PRICE GOOD FOR 60 DAYS TOTAL
SHEET'S IRRlGA TION PLAN USED
REVISIONS NONE $850.00
SIGNS ARE MOUNTED ON GAL V U-CHANNEL POSTS
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.lPLEASE SIGN AND RETURN
TO SCHEDULE WORK.
..
SIGNATURE:
16f1 A19
STATUS REPORT
To: Radio Road MSTU Advisory Committee
Company: Darryl Richard, Collier County A TM
Jim Carr, ASS
James Abney, Abney and Associates
From: Scott Windham
Date: August 25, 2009
RE: 60% Status Report on Radio Road Phase 3 Curbing, Irrigation and Planting
Design
Committee and team:
The following is a brief stalus report for the Radio Road Phase 3 Curbing, Irrigation and
Planting design:
ABB: Curbing Design
. ASS has incorporated 30% staff review comments and coordinated with
Windham Studios to provide 60% curb construction plans.
. For the 60% plans, we have prepared demolilion plan sheets indicating where
curbs, pavers and signs are to be removed or replaced.
. We completed the proposed plan sheets indicating where new Type F curb is
proposed, and where utility boxes are located for adjustment to final grade.
. We completed the intersection detail sheet and sign and striping sheet showing
the left turn lane into the Landscape Supply driveway.
. 60% plans will be reviewed by Collier County staff and comments will be
incorporated into 100% plans at the end of Seplember.
Abney and Associates: Irrigation Design
. Although there were no as-built record drawings that illustrated the existing 3"
irrigation main line layout changes that were done between 2001 and 2008, an
assumed existing 3" irrigation main line layout was done based on a review of the
original irrigation design construction drawings and a review of a recently
prepared base that illustrates the location of the existing main line's valves. Mr.
Roger Dick, CCDOT, indicated lhat the existing main line has not experienced
many main line breaks after the original pump was replaced with a Variable
Frequency Drive Pump. He feels that the condition of the existing main line is
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.windhamstuwo.com
1611A19
salisfactory, as long as the new design's flow demands do not exceed the
existing system's flow demands. The existing irrigation main line layout coupled
with the information provided by Mr. Dick provide a favorable view towards lhe
possibility to conlinue using about 90% of the existing irrigation main.
. A complete elements design layout was done in order to have a realistic
idea/accounting of the number of system elements like: additional sleeves; main
line specialty valves; zone control valves, hydrants and other elements are
necessary to provide complete construction for a suitable irrigation system.
. The design layout done enabled the irrigation designer to evaluate the estimated
areas to irrigate and compare with the estimated potential water consumption
calculations done earlier. The results of the evaluation are very positive. The
existing well and pump station can continue to be used, the only chore that lies
ahead is to modify the existing Consumptive Use Permit.
. Following Committee and staff input, Abney and WSI will move on to 90%
Irrigalion Plans for submittal and review in September and final 1 00% submittal
shortly there after.
Based on the studies done so far it appears as if the project should be able
to experience the construction of a new irrigation system without having to experience
the costs associated with the installation of a new water source, a new main line, new
sleeving, new electric service connections. It is possible to experience some costs
associated with the refurbishment of some of the elements mentioned, but more than
likely lhe refurbishment cost should be significantly lower than the cost of having to
provide completely new elements.
W51: Planting Design
. Windham Studio has completed the 60% Planting Plans and submitted them to
Collier ATM staff for review and comment.
. Following Committee and staff input, WSI will move on to 90% Planting Plans for
submittal and review in September and final 100% submittal shortly there after.
Please emaii 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@windhamstudio.com
www.windhamstudio.com
:i
~
"
0;
"
~
~
o
Z
I-
cifrl
~dC"J
asfw
n~
",,,,"'
88~
a:a:0
wwa:
::i::i!2
5S!a
000:
0;
c
.
0:
1:
~
l-
V>
o
o
w
...
..
..
..
o
0:
"'
..
o
z
08
~ ~
8 g g
7U ~ ~
~ <1l :!:
~ ~
c
o .
8~gg~]
"I: ~ ~ g &:!
:J <D .... II) .... g
<oot<6~<h.g
~
,~
:5 ~ ~ :3 :3
.
w ... .... .... ...
o
~
"2 "jij
E E
i ~ i ~
.g ,g ~ G>
~;l~
,g '" ~ Co ~
~ ~ ~ 0
l j 1 ~
~ '0
z 0
~ ~
0"
... "I <'l ..t
o
z
~
08
o q c:i
g ~~.
It) ..: ~
~~~
~
~
.!l
g
~
M
00
~
o
o
oJ
~
~
.
.
u
..
~
8
'J;
~
e
ci
o
o
~
~
,~
o
~
..
"'
~
.
~
o
o
o
ri
00
o
~
:!
s
~
a
.
~
I
8
8.
~
~ j
~ ~ ~
ro "' U
o 0
.,; 0 ~
:::'iLg"'!.
~ g ~ E
a~~~~
.9 en a.. ~ .Q.
e -; ~ i1 g
'E "5 II ~ 5
<II ~ ~ ;; ;;;
-e 001 U l:l
~aJ!~~
m i =g 8.:: ~
m !? "" .. u .z,
l: g a. ~ ;0 ~
.~€~i"!.8
a; G GI E II Iii
$~i~~8
!11 ~ '0 E ts g>
~~k ~~
~~;g~3l
!!! g .j [!. j
~ - "i &- E. '"
<IlGE~~f
.~ i (; 0,!2 -~
~~2.E~;
Jj:i~~]
.~i~e;:a~~
~::iild:o~gF
o
z
~
8
g l!!
~~
~M
2
.
E
.!l
. 0
. ro
U ci
g Si
~ ~
~
..
o
~
o~
o
~~
~~
,
'"
~
.
.1: 0
~ oJ
~
.
'2 g>
~ 0
~
I
~
~ ~
w '"
"
-"
,
~
~ ~
" ~
<3 ~
a E
~..
~ ~
~ f
~
J! 0
.. .
o "
o 6
.2 ~
,g ~ rr-
"C: 8. ~
~ ~ ~
~ I- If
M
E
o
z
~
"
iii'
o
..
~
N
I!;
..
"'
~
~
~
.
~
..
.
o
~
S
"
;c
~
~
.
~
M
E
.!l
o
~
jj
o
j
.
~
"'
.
E
.
_z
j ~
. E
,0 <3
1
c .
..
~
~
..
E
- .~
g
c
-"
..
~ 1 J
s; .!2 ~
II :ii
i !~
!z ~ ~
s ~ Ul
~ e-
~
~
u
..
~
o g ~ g g
g ~ ~ a ~
N ...:- N ..,. N
<6...,...,.......,
.
.
u
'<
~
00000
00000
o c:i ci c::i ~
~ l5l ~ (l; N
........w.........
o
~
<II III III 01 III
W W W W W
>>
o
o 0
N N
:;: ;:: ~
.
w
..
g
2
..
~
;e
~
"'
o
o "
~ fr 7a 8:
~ ~ ,
~o~g~
~ fr ~ 13 ~,
"'" 0: ~ fr N
g.i!:- .a:-c
::' ~ ]. B ~
~ ~ .., . ':
]. :g ~ :g :g
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
.= -E
~ ~ ~ J1l ~
~ 8. ~ g <II
..<;; !!? 2' ~ Q.
..n. <; ;,., :::i ~
:> G) EEl-
-, :? If ~ :ii
.~ ~ al "5 ;!;l
t%:::i~d.l~
~
IJ;
-8, .~
i ~ ~
~ !:l ~ !!! ~
.E ;;; .!? ~ ~
"f).:;!
t ~ ~ ~ il
.!g~:3':::i~
:; ::; 3 ~ ~
~ . ~
o "'
z ~
E ~
~ e:
1611
o 0
~ g ~ g
; ! ; !
~ ~ ~
~ g ~ ~
:iil ~
.
~
III to to <ll
W W W W
~ ~ ~ ~
..
g
i?
:s
ii'i
E ~
~
.
~
,
o
..
~ 2' :?
g .& :E: :i:
.. "G ~ ~
!::! ic E E
~ ~ 8 :g
t:! b ~ ~
E E
.. ..
~ E ~
~ 'iI ~ E
~ ~ ~ ~
.1 & ~
~ .0 "E ~
~ ~ ~ If
~
~
~ .
_.; 0 ~ e
= c '
: E g II
!a<ll~
*!i!:S!
i~~~
W 0.. :::i g
a: CI) ~ S:
"'.... lC Ol
o
~
<
~
'"
~
w
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
U
Q
Z
~
o
~
o
o 0
o 0 0 0 0
;~~~!
..,. - ~ --
:il :il
N N
M ~
o
~~~~~
----~
to <ll <ll <ll <ll
W W W W W
;! ~
~ ~ N
.... ~ gj
~
:.
~ ~ * ~ ~
c: r:: c:
'i -i ~
a a a
M M ~
~~
a a
~ M
.
f
.~ ~
~ :;:I .B
> cil .
.~ ~ Ii:
~ 1] ~
~ ~ :Ii
~ ~ E
o "' <
'0
~ ~ "f
~ &
~ ~ :Ii .., i
c: GI .12 .~ .2:
i]~iiii
;t: ii'i:g III Iii
:g .i ~ e> ~
~ .~ a..!
.- .n! ,J c: ill
~ ~ H ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Cl (I) :::i :r a:
(Xl al :2 ~ ~
o
o
~
~
r
~
1\ 19
~I g ~ ~ ~ ~
~h~!~~
.........----
g :il :il :e g g
.....: M M <D .....: M
.... -.... - -...
tel III III III tel <tI
W W W W W W
~ m
.... N '" '"
~ ~ ~ iLi
~
. !! ~ ~
~ ~ ~ .
c: c" r::
......
. . .
loi.oi.o~~~
'0 E Q
. . ~
g
~
..
. ~
~ .
" Jl
tj
:::i i:j)
~
~
E E '0
~ ~ ~ ~ 8-
~~~~..,~
~~'!~l~
~ u ; ~ ~ ~
~ ~ Cl i5 .i 8:
"
.
~
.~ ~
Ii ~
,0' ~
pJ.rn
. .
:e -e
~,g
!I !I
w w
~
~ .~.~
~ ~ ~
.2 ~ en P-
c: ~ III .~.
{5 ~ ~ ~
.E ~.!!! ~
.!9 g .g 2.
~ E ~ GI
l~~t
~ ~ ~ a ~ ~
o
,
o
~
~
~
~
.
E
.!l
;i
c
g
~
j
.
D
,
o
~ ~
1'J. g
, ,
~
~
III
~
"
.
.
~
.
o
..
..
..
.
o
5 g g
ci ci
J ~ ~
w w
~ g go
~ ~ g ~
~ ~ ~ ~
........ ........
8 ~ ~
o 8
"2 0 Il'l
~ N ~
W W
g ~
.; N
o
00
o ci
~ g
.". .... fIl- w
."
. . .
~ w w
'" <tI '" '" <II '" '" os
w w w w w w w w
o
o
R SiJ:7l g g
..; r- r- ~ ~ g
.
w
"l
E
.
~
e
E
B
1!
E
8
~
o
c
o
o
Ii
8 ~ j
p[
,ij f& ~
~ 'S ~
"a E .;
j E '~~
~ 8 ? .8
~ "2 t,; e c:
~;~~~~
~ ~ t i-g
"'il 0 l!! '3 :€ lE
l!~i~]~
~~m:i'~g~
ij!~t'[~
~ -5 iii e- oS .~ a
l: i ! ~ = ..c: OIl
::!J!g~l~.a
'i~~~,2-~
~I"~~-.~~~
.2'!.~_-5!~
e! :!! <: ~ l ~ 'S
i ~:~ ~~-=
11 .2 !:!:. ~ .~ 0 g
~ ~ : a ~ I i J I
;~:ii~15gc....
DI~.' .,
.e .s:I: oS g>.5 ~ "'il
0" i.;;; " . .!
t ~ i ! ~ ~ i i i
~ Jl .1i.1 t:l.. a '13 ~
~~~ii~-.s.E
i~l~E~~:J~
d .i! .~ .. g II -s
'~~.~~~;!!.~!!
~i~~~~1]~",~
~~"C':~jl~~
g~~!lj~fii
~f~5:~~.~.a],.
.. ..( 0> 0.. J! :E -. 5
;P1P:ljq
~ is ol= '" 1:: ~ B_
c: u ~ ~ ~ ~ ] ~
~ ~ "2 0 ~ ~ u g m
f!-i~~_~~~~
'" c '7 .. "' - 0 0
I ~ I ~ j lE ~ ~
~}~~E~~~~
~
~
>
N
~ . ~
ci
z
E
g
o
g ~ g 0
~ g g :;;
::}Lri" M.l!:?
........ foot fo'l
~ ~
ci c;i
<I) a> ~
o 0
o 0
ci lli
~ ~
N ~
~
j
1
~
~ .r
"
-;
n
"'il .~
~ w
, ~
. ~
i ~
~ i
ii
o ~
~ ,
, "
i ~
= t
;q ~
.s "lj'
Ii i
~ ~
'j [
B ~
}}
,
,
.
!
.,
.,
,
,
,
i
~
.~
:3
]
~
~ 1
e. j
j j {
i ;., e
. ] "
e '" 1
... :0 ~
~ ~
i i !
~ ]
~ ~ ~
~ ] i
:>l i '.:::1
i i i
!! !:::
j j -8
.," .~ ~
, .
l '" :!!
~q
" ,
Pl
, I "
8
~ 6
!
~ ].
H
t .
, [
; .~
a ~
~ :.
;., ]
8
g
~
of
~
g
ci
~
.
w
.
w
~
f
.
l
~
o
o
g
"
o
o
ci
~
~
w
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
.
w
. .
w w
N
N ~
o
~ j
.~ ~
Ii "i
11 !l
" ~
h
e ,
p
d
~ B
!l ii
.~ B
e .
~ :3
~H
I ,"
~ ~ ~
j ~ ~
~ '
:~ ~ ~ ~
B " ~ ]. a
! 0 ~
:;a ~ -8 i
-8 U ~ ~ ~
.$'" " , !! t
- ~ ~ B ;a
~ .= -: ~ ~
~~~i~
j .; .
Q ~ :; !;!
i. .(] ~
"."'- -;
~ ~ N {
o ~ Q B ~
~ .-
.= ~ J; ! .f
! dO]
~~$}1
.
,
~
.~
,
j
!
]
e
i
~
I
~
~ ;!
o 0
o 0
o iii
~ ~
of
w w
o
g ~
~ ~
w w
o 0
o 0
g ~
~ ~
. .
w w
o
~ ~
~
;
~ c..
i "E
, l
i .
~ [
h
~ ~
n
" ~ 8
~ Jj 1
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
.~ ;:;
l ~ ~
~ f .1
!! ~
ti: -
~ ~
1 >'!
, ;:
-: c
" c
"g ~
] :0
~
~
,
,
.
t
.
.
1 ~
e ~
~ ::
i ]
} .
. .I
, >
-: f::!
.~
I
~ :>
.{ ~
~
l :l:
~ ~
g ~ g
~ g g
~~~
~ ~ ~
000
000
![j ~ :sj
w w w
. . .
w w w
o 0 ~
~ ~ ~
,
i
~ g
8 ';1 ~
.i f ~
1 . i
"~ i
ip
B .E .e
~ :ii ]
~ c..j
! ~ I
:.a -!l ~
i q~.
~ -
e
l>I 1 J1
~ 3 ·
d!
;i B" e }
~ .g ]. 11
.., So So ~
i ~ ~ ~
.& ~ ~ E
~ ] ] -
- . - ~
~ 'i' :;' ;';;
i ~ & ~
Ii ~ ~ .!j
'~ ~ :f :f g
u !:::! ~
li !:::! ~ ] j
;; ~ JJ w, ~
~ 'i ~ ~ j
, '3 ~ ~ .
: .s "" "" ""
]~ggf
pL,
~ ~ ~ ~ ""
'i '* '* i i
'" ~ ~ oJ! i.
~ B B j ~
'8 E:: E:: f ~._
I ~ ! ~ -
w, :l: ;r:: J;: _
"
'" -
< u
~ g:
~
o
~
~ ~ ~
8
g
~.
00
ON
~ ~
1~
~ ~
:t
~ !
H
. 0
~ I
< m
~ .
" 0
~ ~
.
o
..
.
o
w
o
o
m
N
w
.
w
~
.
~
.
i
.
"
.
"~
.
!
~
5
,
!
,
.,
]
,
,
,
'-
,
,
o
;
"
]
,
]
, !
II [
i ~
!~
~ 8.
~ i
.::. low
~ ~
, ,
" u
] ~
! B
o ~
o
N
.. go 8
o r-: q lIli
~ ~ ;;;:Ii
~ ~ ~ ~
w W ~
~
~
~ g;;
~ :;: ~ ~
~ ~ g!
.
o
..
~ ~ ~ ~
.
w
.
Q
~
t 8
1? ~
. ..
eF ~
~ lil
- ]
,,0
. "
~ ~
ow
"
~
E
g
~
1611 A19
~
Ii
~
v
"
~
.
<
o
=
~
I
.
m
!
Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc
60% Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost
August 24, 2009
1611
A19
RADIO ROAD MSTU PROJECT PHASE 3
CURBING CONSTRUCTION PLANS
Item No. Description Unit Quantity Unit To""
Cosl Cost
] MOBILIZATION LS ] $37500.00 $37500.00
2 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC LS ] $10000.00 $10 000.00
3 CLEARING AND GRUBBING (13.6 AC\ LS ] $20,000.00 $20,000.00
4 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE PAVEMENT SY 1362 S10.00 $]3,620.00
5 REMOVE EXISTING BRICK PAVERS SY 31 $5,00 $185.00
6 EXCAVATION CY 4,943 $10.00 $49430.00
1 EMBANKMENT - MAINLINE CY 588 $15.00 $8,820.00
8 EMBANKMENT - MEDIAN TOPSOIL CY 4,759 $]7.00 $80903.00
9 L1MEROCK BASE 6" THICK (PRIMED' LBR ] 00 'UNDER F CURB) SY 2614 $11.00 $28754.00
]0 ABC 9" THICK SY 4 $55.00 $220,00
II ADJUST EXISTING MEDIAN INLETS TO MANHOLES EA 3 $3,000.00 $9000.00
12 ADJUST EXISTING IRRIGATION VALVES TO GRADE EA 50 $300.00 $15,000.00
13 CONCRETE CURB & GUITER, TYPE F LF 94]0 $10.00 $94100.00
14 CONCRETE SIDEWALK 6" THICK SY 23 $35.00 $805.00
15 BRICK PAVERS (INCLUDES 10"/0 WASTE) SY 511 $50.00 $25,850.00
16 SODDING (BAHIA VINCLUDES WATER FERTILIZER & MOWING) SY 13,]00 $2.00 $26,200,00
11 SIGNING AND MARKING LS ] $2,000.00 $2000.00
15% CONTIGENCY $63000.00
PROJECT TOTAL. WITHOUT LEFT TURN $485,387,00
] MOBILIZA TJON LS ] $2500,00 $2,500.00
2 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC LS ] $1,500.00 $1,500.00
3 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LS ] $],500.00 $1,500,00
4 EXCAVATION CY 500 $10.00 $5000.00
5 EMBANKMENT. MAINLINE CY 15 $]5,00 $225.00
6 EMBANKMENT - MEDIAN TOPSOIL CY .300 $17,00 .$5,100.00
1 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER, TYPE F LF 138 $10.00 $],380.00
8 BRICK PAVERS tINCLUDES ]0"/0 WASTE) SY -133 $50.00 .$6650.00
9 SODDING {BAHIA )(INCLUDES WATER. FERTILIZER & MOWING! SY .266 $2.00 -$532.00
]0 TYPE "B" STABILIZATION SY 135 $5,00 $3675,00
II LIMEROCK BASE, 6" THICK (PRIMED' LBR 100 (UNDER F CURB) SY 38 $]\.00 $418.00
12 LIMEROCK BASE 10" THICK (PRIMED, LBR 100 (UNDER NEW PA VEMENTl SY 625 $18.00 $11250.00
13 SUPERPAVEASPHALTIC CONCRETE (TRAFFIC C\(2112") SY 625 $14.00 $8750,00
14 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE FRICTION COURSE (FC 9.5)(RUBBER)(}") SY 625 $7.00 $4,375.00
15 SIGNING AND MARKING LS ] $],500.00 $1,500.00
15-/0 CONTIGENCY $4,500.00
TOTAL-LEFT TURN ONLY $34,291.00
PROJECT TOTAL ~ WITH LEFT TURN I $519,678.00
Fiala
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
'tI-
1611' B1
September 4, 2(JU9
Naples, Florida, September 4, 2009
F<ECEIVED
SEP 2 4 2009
80ard of County Commissioners
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Special Magistrate, in and
for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at
9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F," 3rd floor, of the Government
Complex, Naples, Florida, and the following persons were present:
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE:
Honorable Brenda Garretson
Mile. CoINI:
ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Sup~sor \ D 1'2-1109
Michele McGonagle, Administrative Secre::~ llo Ti t)B I
161~1 81
September 4, 2009
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Meeting was called to order by the Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda
Garretson at 9:00 AM. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath.
A. Hearing Rules and Regulations were given by Special Magistrate Garretson.
Special Magistrate Garretson noted that, prior to conducting the Hearing, the
Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating
Officer(s) for a Resolution by Stipulation; the goal is to obtain compliance without
being punitive.
RECESS: 9:07 AM
RECONVENED: 9:21 AM
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes:
(a) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following cases were DISMISSED by the
County due to payment:
· Agenda #2, Case #SO 161575 - CEEX 20090013445 - BCC vs. Tammy T.
Means
· Agenda #3, Case #PR 003155 - CEEX 20090013296 - BCC vs. Brett M.
Onasch
(b) Under Item V (B), "Hearings,"the following case was WITHDRAWN by the
County:
· Agenda #6, Case #CESD 20090009794 - BCC vs. Victor A. Lopez &
Delores Morales De Lopez
(c) Under Item V (C), "Emergency Case," the following case was ADDED by the
County:
· Case #CEPM 20090002451 - BCC vs. Arnold Frank, c/o Exeter Holding,
Ltd.
(d) Under Item VI (A), "Motion for Imposition of Fines," the following case was
DISMISSED by the County due to payment:
· Agenda #4, Case #CEV 20090001146 - BCC vs. Juan L. Grande &
Mercedes Boligan
(e) Under Item VI (A), "Motion for Imposition of Fines," in Agenda #11, Case
#2006070466 - BCC vs. Jill Weave & Henry Tesno, the Respondent's name was
corrected to Weaver.
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.
2
16 Je~lbJl, 109
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 21, 2009
Correction:
· Agenda #10, Case # CEV 20090003526 - BCC vs. Elmar Robert Aponte & Sylvia
Lopez, the Operational Costs are $117.70 (not $117.80).
· Under "Old Business: Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order, " in Case
#CEPM 20080007331 - BCC vs. Dian & June Edwards, the date of the Order
was corrected to October 3, 2008 (not October 2, 2008).
The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on August 21,2009 were reviewed
by the Special Magistrate and approved as amended.
IV. MOTIONS
A. Motion for Reduction/Abatement of Fines - None
B. Motion for Continuance - None
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Stipulations:
None
B. Hearings:
1. Case # PU 4607 - CEEX 20090011454 - BCC vs. Jose Camet
The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was represented by his wife,
Susanne Buschbeck.
Collier County Public Utilities Enforcement Investigator Mike Andresky was also
present.
Violations: Ord. 2002-17, Section(s) 5.5.4
Irrigation violation - Phase II Water Restriction. Wrong day.
Health, safety, welfare
Folio No: 32486320000
Violation address: 4521 Rosea Court, Naples
The Respondent resides at 4521 Rosea Court, Naples, Florida 34104.
The Respondent's name was corrected to C-a-I-m-e-t.
Ms. Buschbeck stated she and her husband were not aware they were violation since
there had been no advisory regarding the drought status in the utility bills since June
2008. Her husband set the timer for the watering system and both thought the
drought restrictions had changed due to rain. She claimed they would not have
knowingly violated the Ordinance.
3
16 I JptemBr 1,20~9
Investigator Andresky introduced one photograph which was marked as County's
Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. He stated the Phase II Water Restrictions
have remained in effect since September 26, 2008.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay a cMlfine of$75.00 and an
administrative fee of $5. 00 on or before October 4, 2009 altered by a subsequent
Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $50.00 on
or before October 4, 2009.
Total Amount Due: $130.00
4. Case #CEPM 20080016475 - BCC vs. San Janie Trevino & Guadalupe
Martinez
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Property
Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha who was present.
The Respondent was also present.
Violations: Collier County Code Of Laws & Ord, Chapter 22, Article VI,
Section 22-231, Subsections 9, II, 12A, 12B, 12C, 121, 12K, 12N, 120,
12P, 19 & 20
Single family home that is owner-occupied that has numerous Minimum
Housing violations
Folio No: 56400080001
Violation address: 3 I I Price Street, Immokalee, FL 34 I 42
Ms. Trevino stated she has married and her last name is Castro.
Ms. Martinez has passed away and Ms. Trevino is in the process of changing the title
to the property.
Investigator Mucha introduced 47 photographs which were marked as County's
Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. The complaint was initiated by
the Health Department. The property is in a severe state of disrepair and amounted to
a complete tear-down. He further stated since the Respondent and her family have no
where else to live, he will contact various County agencies on the Respondent's
behalf to determine if assistance is possible and available.
The Respondent stated she does not have the finances available to repair the structure.
The Special Magistrate ruled the case will be CONTINUED to allow the Investigator
to investigate further options for the Respondent. The Respondent and her family
are to clean up the property and make as many repairs to the structure as possible.
Status Reports and photographs will be presented by the Investigator and the
Respondent at the October 2, 2009 Hearing.
4
16eJ~Jer a~
5. Case #CEPM 20090002186 - BCC vs. An Trinh
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Property
Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha who was present.
The Respondent was not present.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 22, Article VI,
Section 22-231, Subsections 121, 12L, 12P, 19
Rental unit being maintained in sub-standard condition.
Folio No: 61482960008
Violation address: 2996 Francis Avenue, Naples
The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on August 25,2009 and proof of
delivery on August 26, 2009 was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. The property
and the Courthouse were posted on August 24, 2009.
The Investigator introduced three photographs, taken on March 4, 2009, which were
marked as County's Composite Exhibit "A," and four photographs, taken on June 12,
2009, which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "B," and admitted into
evidence.
The violations have been abated.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served andfinding the violation did
exist but was CORRECTED prior to the Hearing, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $II 8.20 on or
before October 4, 2009.
C. Emergency Case:
1. Case # CEPM 20090002451 - BCC vs. Arnold Frank c/o Exeter Holdinl!:. Ltd.
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Heinz
Box who was present.
The Respondent was not present.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord., Chapter 22, Building and
Building Regulations, Article II, Florida Building Code,
Section 22-26 (103.11.1)
Unsecured, unsafe building or structure
Folio No: 67342280000
Violation address: 171 Carica Road, Naples
The Notice of Violation was sent via Certified Mail and proof of delivery on May 15,
2009 was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. The Notice of Hearing was posted at
the property and the Courthouse on August 31, 2009.
5
1611' B1
September 4, 2009
The Investigator introduced four photographs which were marked as County's
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 Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to obtain a Collier County
Boarding Permit and completely secure the structure on or before September 11,
2009, or afine of $250. 00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation
remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the
Special Magistrate.
Ifthe 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.
Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office
to enforce the terms of the Order.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117. 61 on
or before October 4, 2009.
The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement
of the violation and request the Investigator peiform a site inspection to confirm
compliance.
TotalAmountDue: $117.61
RECESS: 10:30 AM
RECONVENED: 11:00 AM
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Motion for Imposition of Fines:
1. Case # CEPM 20090000772 - BCC vs. Jill Weaver
The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigative
Supervisor Jeff Letourneau.
The Respondent was not present
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ord., Chapter 22, Article VI,
Section 22-231, Subsections 1,9, 12L, 12P, 19, and 20
Mobile home being used as rental property being maintained in
substandard condition
Folio No: 52700640006
Violation address: 3064 Van Buren Avenue, Naples
The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on August 24,
2009.
Supervisor Letourneau stated the violations have not been abated.
6
1 f... I ~1 ~ 1
~eptemter 4, ~09
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of $118.14,
together with fines in the amount of$12,750 for the period from July 16,2009
through September 4,2009 (51 days @ $250/day), for a total amount of$12,868.14.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motionfor Imposition of Fines in
the total amount of $12,868.14 and noted the Fines will continue to accrue.
2. Case #CEPM 20080007331 - BCC vs. Dian & June Edwards
The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigative
Supervisor Jeff Letourneau.
The Respondents were not present.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ord., Chapter 22, Article VI,
Section 22-231, Subsections 1-5,9,121, 12K, 12N, 12P, 12R, 19A,
19C & 20
Vacant rental property with several Minimum Housing Violations
Folio No: 35981560003
Violation address: 4654 24th Place SW, Naples, FL 34116
The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on August 23,
2009.
Supervisor Letourneau stated the Operational Costs of $118.04 were paid, but the
violations have not been abated.
The County requested imposition of fines in the amount of $94,500 for the period
from August 23, 2008 through September 4,2009 (378 days @ $250/day), for a total
amount of $94,500.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in
the total amount of $94,500 and noted the Fines will continue to accrue.
3. Case #CEPM 20090002302 - BCC vs. Lortoni Cardenas
The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigative
Supervisor Jeff Letourneau.
The Respondent was not present.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ord., Chapter 22, Article VI,
Section 22-231, 12C and 121
Damaged soffit and broken window
Folio No: 36111400000
Violation address: 5023 24th Avenue SW, Naples
The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on August 24,
2009.
7
16 Pi 0 1
SeptemiM 4~009
Supervisor Letourneau stated the violations have not been abated.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of$117.96, together
with fines in the amount of$12,750 for the period from July 16,2009 through
September 4,2009 (51days @ $250/day), for a total amount of$12,867.96.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motionfor Imposition of Fines in
the total amount of $12,867.96 and noted the Fines will continue to accrue.
5. Case #CEV 20080016915 - BCC vs. Kennneth W. Livka
The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Ralph
Sosa.
The Respondent was not present.
Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended,
Sec. 2.0 l.OO(A)
Unlicensed/inoperable vehicle parked/stored on residential area
Folio No: 39836600001
Violation address: 2675 43rd Avenue NE
The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on August 21,
2009.
Investigator Sosa stated the violations have not been abated.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of$117.87, together
with fines in the amount of $3,600 for the period from June 25, 2009 through
September 4,2009 (72 days @ $50/day), for a total amount of$3,717.87.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in
the total amount of $3,717.87 and noted the Fines will continue to accrue.
6. Case #CEPM 20080015884 - BCC vs. Lvnda M. Mavor
The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator
Michelle Scavone.
The Respondent was not present.
Violations: Ordinance 2004-58, Section 12
Dangerous building
Folio No: #00304160002
Violation address: FOLIO #00304160002
The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on August 25, 2009 and proof of
delivery on August 27, 2009 was provided by the U.S. Postal Service. The property
and the Courthouse were posted on August 21, 2009.
8
16 1'1 B 1
September 4, 2009
Investigator Scavone stated the violation were abated by the County.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of$I 17.96, together
with fines in the amount of $24,750 for the period from April 28, 2009 through
August 4, 2009 (99 days @ $250/day), and reimbursement of abatement costs in the
sum of$3,509.99, for a total amount of$28,377.95.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in
the total amount of$28,377.95.
7. Case #CEPM 20090002388- BCC vs. AUl!ustin & Marie O. Dalusma
The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator
Kitchell Snow.
The Respondents were not present.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord., Chap. 22, Article VI, Property
Maintenance Code, Sec.22-23I, Subs. 5, 9,10, 12B, 12C, 121, 12L, 12P,
13,14,19, and 20
Derelict home used for prostitution and drugs with numerous Property
Maintenance Violations
Folio No: 74030680002
Violation address: 406 2nd Street, Immokalee
The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on August 20,
2009.
Investigator Snow stated the violations were abated by the County.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of$118.40, together
with fines in the amount of $13,750 for the period from June II, 2009 through
August 4,2009 (55 days @ $250/day), and reimbursement of abatement costs in the
sum of$4,843.33, for a total amount of$18,711.73.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motionfor Imposition of Fines in
the total amount of $1 8,711.73.
8. Case #CEPM 20080003523 - BCC vs. Jill Weaver & Henry Tesno
The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator
Thomas Keegan
The Respondents were not present.
Violations: Code of Laws and Ord., Article VI, Sec. 22-231, Sub(s.) 2,
9,11, 12B, 12F, 120, 12H, 121, 12K, 12L, 12N & 19B
Numerous internal & external Minimum Housing Violations as
described in the Property Maintenance Report
9
161~q 81
September 4, 2009
Folio No: 52700320009
Violation address: 3140 Van Buren Avenue, Naples, FL 34112
The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on August 21,
2009.
Investigator Keegan stated the County abated the violations on July 23,2008.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of $274.02, fines in
the amount of$21,000 for the period from June 12,2008 through July 23, 2008 (42
days @ $500/day), a Civil Penalty in the amount of$5,000, and reimbursement of
abatement costs in the sum of $5,834, for a total amount of $32, I 08.02.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in
the total amount of $32,1 08. 02.
9. Case #2006100088 - BCC vs. Jill J. Weaver
The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator
Thomas Keegan
The Respondent was not present
Violations: Collier County Ord. 2005-44, as amended, Section 7
Litter consisting of, but not limited to, downed trees and limbs, an old
wheel barrel, broken fencing, scaffolds, plastic containers, and furniture
throughout the property.
Folio No: 22624160003
Violation address: 4620 Acadia Lane, Naples, 34112
The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on August 21,
2009.
Investigator Keegan stated the violations were abated on March 28, 2007.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of $106.97, together
with fines in the amount of $5, I 00 for the period from February 6, 2007 through
March 28, 2007 (51 days @ $IOO/day), for a total amount of$5,206.97.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motionfor Imposition of Fines in
the total amount of $5,206.97.
10. Case #2006070464 - BCC vs. Jill Weaver & Henrv Tesno
The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator
Thomas Keegan
The Respondents were not present
10
16 I~ B 1
September 4, 2009
Violations: Collier County Ord. 04-41, as amended, Sec. 2.01.00(A)
Unlicensed/inoperable vehicles
Folio No: 71800000527
Violation address: 3117 Areca Avenue, Naples, 34112
The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on August 21,
2009.
Investigator Keegan stated the violations have been abated.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of$150.61, together
with a Civil Penalty in the amount of$IOO, for a total amount of$250.61.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in
the total amount of $250. 61.
11. Case #2006070466 - BCC vs. Jill Weave & Henry Tesno
The County was represented by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator
Thomas Keegan
The Respondents were not present.
(Note: correction to spelling of Weave I, pursuant to amendment to Agenda.)
Violations: Collier County Ord. 04-41, as amended, Sec. 4.05.03(A)
Vehicles parked in front yard
Folio No: 71800000527
Violation address: 3117 Areca Avenue, Naples, 34112
The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on August 21,
2009.
Investigator Keegan stated the violation was abated on September 13,2006.
The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of$150.61, together
with fines in the amount of $900 for the period from September 3, 2006 through
September 11,2006 (9 days @ $IOO/day), for a total amount of$I,050.61.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motionfor Imposition of Fines in
the total amount of $1,050.61.
VII. OLD BUSINESS: None
VIII. CONSENT AGENDA:
A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as referenced in the
submitted Executive Summary.
None
11
16 rl B 1
September 4, 2009
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 to impose a Nuisance Abatement Lien
IX. REPORTS: None
X. NEXT HEARING DATE - September 18, 2009 at 9:00 AM, located at the Collier
County Government Center, Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, 3301 E. Tamiami
Trail, Naples, Florida.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by
Order of the Special Magistrate at 11 :33 AM.
COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
HEARING
The Minutes were approved by the S~l Magistrate on ~~ l ~ I ~d1 ,
as presented _, or as amended .
12